Evidence for God from Science

fine so its an expansion not an explosion, big deal(as i stated im not a physicist) however primortial atom is what some have described it as, which i stated its merely a picture i get in my head of a singularity, i'm well aware that it wasn't an atom you see.

Also i'm aware of what abiogenesis is, but evolution does try to explain the coming of different life forms or species or whatever you wanna call it.

What evidence is it that you find refutes evolution in the first place.

Or the big bang for that matter?

"We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwins time" -David M Raup, Curator of Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago.

There is no real valid evidence for evolution. Most of the evidence they did have has been either disproved by science or disproved by the fact that the evidence was doctored.

two_phat wrote:There is no real valid evidence for evolution. Most of the evidence they did have has been either disproved by science or disproved by the fact that the evidence was doctored.

Although I don't favour "evolution" in any way, I think saying there is no evidence for it to be an overstatement. There is much evidence for "evolution," though in my experience many defenders do a poor job at presenting it. Yet, at the same time there are many problems... and it is in light of the problems, and no convincing evolutionary answers, that I think another model which fits the data better is required.

Yet, I tend to avoid debating "evolution" where possible as I really don't care too much if someone holds to it or not. If I do tackle it, I see it as much easier to go for the jugular through the origin of life problems. If life couldn't have formed via natural processes, then one perhaps should not be obliged to accept any form of macroevolution.

Kurieuo.

I wouldn't make that argument K. Evolution has nothing to do with origins.

Actually macroevolution has a lot to do with origin because if the origin of life isn't through natural process then who's to say the diversity of life is. Also evolution like Kurieuo said isn't the solid theory it's made out to be and ID I frankly think is much better. I mean have you seen an evolutionist go to ID? yes we have, however I have yet to see a proponent of ID switch to natural selection.

Why would i refute Big Bang? I said atheist scientists try to alter Big Bang to avoid the fact that the universe had a beginning.

There are people(deists) who think God simply set the mechanism in motion and left. So those might not believe in abiogenesis but believe in evolution.

MM wrote:I wouldn't make that argument K. Evolution has nothing to do with origins.

Yes I agree, that was the point of my thread at Intelligent Design and Darwinian Evolution. Compatible?. At the same time Jac raised some valid points about a "naturalist" philosophy undergirding macroevolutionary theories. Therefore if you can show in some form that a "naturalist" scenario fails (e.g., at the origins), then perhaps advocates would feel more free and less distressed about examining the problems with evolutionary theory, rather than seeing it as the be all and end all.

Kurieuo.

vvart wrote:Also evolution like Kurieuo said isn't the solid theory it's made out to be and ID I frankly think is much better. I mean have you seen an evolutionist go to ID? yes we have, however I have yet to see a proponent of ID switch to natural selection.

The thing about ID is that models aren't really forthcoming for it, and therefore a comparison can't really be drawn between it and evolutionary models. Science works with models, and if models only exists for "evolution," then despite all its flaws, it still stands has the best "scientific" theories available.

Now by a model, I mean something that can explain things, and make predictions on what we expect to find, and thus be testable. Mainstream ID proponents seem very unforthcoming with any model (and I think with due reasons). However, I am aware of a model by RTB, who borrow from the ID framework, and have begun formulating their own model based on their Biblical interpretation and exegesis (see http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/testablecreationsummary.shtml). Their model in my opinion, stands as the strongest testable model based on creation and ID (if not the only), and it also explains and makes predictions that appear very compatible with our understanding of the sciences, and can also be falsified.

So ultimately, I don't think it is enough though to bash evolutionary theory, although one should certainly be aware of its failings. Instead, one should at least present something else to offer as a replacement, even if that something else may receive ridicule amongst the prevalent naturalistic philosophy present with many scientists. Something else that better fulfills what we know, makes predictions, and has explanatory power. To not do so, is perhaps to wimp out of putting one's money where their mouth is.

Kurieuo.

The main problem you will encounter is to find an alternate model for the PROCESSmacroevolution(I don't believe there is one, to be honest). I read that link, yet it fails to provide a process. The scientific community will demand one. For example, Naturalistic Evolution relies on the Evolution of one cell to humanity, and its process is a combination of Natural Selection and Mutations. I don't understand why we can't have macroevolution in ID. No, it does not need to come from one cell to humanity. However, it would make sense for God to create simpler life forms first, and perhaps use them, and combinations of some of their traits to create new ones. Or perhaps use bacteria as building blocks for new life forms, all of which would be considered macroevolution. Not only can we use a huge chunk of Evolution to support ID, but if our future predictions come true, destroy the Naturalist chokehold it has on science.

MM wrote:However, it would make sense for God to create simpler life forms first, and perhaps use them, and combinations of some of their traits to create new ones.

This is exactly what Day-Age proponent believes, only where does this open the door for macroevolutionary processes to occur?

If it is rejected that macroevolutionary processes could occur on their own, then macroevolutionary theories have failed to explain the diversity of life. Therefore, what is the point of positing that such is still true, while retaining God is still needed to intervene each time when a new species came onto the scene?

Perhaps Ockham's razor could be invoked to cut away unnecessarily complicating matters, and one simply assumes God created each kind of life brand new. And then we'd predict the spontaneous arising of life in the fossil record, and that no macroevolutionary mechanism would become known. And we'd not only predict that any macroevolutionary mechanism would continue to allude us, but perhaps also that as we discover more, the mechanism required would become more complex and thus need to satisfy more parameters.

Kurieuo.

This is exactly what Day-Age proponent believes, only where does this open the door for macroevolutionary processes to occur?

If it is rejected that macroevolutionary processes could occur on their own, then macroevolutionary theories have failed to explain the diversity of life. Therefore, what is the point of positing that such is still true, while retaining God is still needed to intervene each time when a new species came onto the scene?

Perhaps Ockham's razor could be invoked to cut away unnecessarily complicating matters, and one simply assumes God created each kind of life brand new. And then we'd predict the spontaneous arising of life in the fossil record, and that no macroevolutionary mechanism would become known. And we'd not only predict that any macroevolutionary mechanism would continue to allude us, but perhaps also that as we discover more, the mechanism required would become more complex and thus need to satisfy more parameters.

Kurieuo.

The problem is, there have been observations of species evolving into new species( a bacteria evolves to a simple multicellular organism, its somewhere in the robot topic). In addition, we know mutations occur. We know God doesn't just appear and flashes new species into existance. The most logical process(to me) is to assume some sort of macroevolution is occuring.

Mastermind wrote:The problem is, there have been observations of species evolving into new species( a bacteria evolves to a simple multicellular organism, its somewhere in the robot topic). In addition, we know mutations occur. We know God doesn't just appear and flashes new species into existance. The most logical process(to me) is to assume some sort of macroevolution is occuring.

I suppose the issue comes in providing an acceptable definition of "species." Yet, unicellular organisms, such as viruses and bacteria, are able to evolve much more rapidly than larger multicellular organisms. To add to the weight of evidence for evolution, there are also the well-known variation in the beaks of finches caused by drought, where their beaks increased in size during drought, and decreased over the years with much rain. Additionally, bacteria evolves resistance to antibiotics, and insects become resistant to pesticides.

Now with such things, virtually no knowledgable person on either side of the debate will deny. Infact many Young Earth Creationists (YECs) believe God took on the ark certain "kinds" of animals, and thereafter they bred and interbred, adapted and evolved, into the many kinds of animals we have today. To quote YEC organisation, Answers in Genesis, they write in talking of "natural selection": "Even new 'species' can come about like that, but no new information. This helps to explain greater diversity today than on board the Ark." (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... waters.asp) This is also one point Day-Age proponents challenge YECs on, seeing as YECs posit an enormously fast rate of evolution that "evolutionists" themselves would dare not even posit, in order to account for the diverse range of species we have today (see Rapid Post-Flood Speciation: A Critique of the Young-Earth Model).

Now hopefully I have shown that such types of evolution are generally not questioned, except perhaps by those not entirely familiar with the position they advocate and what these concepts imply. Yet, the type of evolution you refer to is only small-scale—what has come to be associated to as microevolution. Microevolution, as I'm sure you are aware, includes concepts such as mutation, recombination, and natural selection. However, to extropolate this to say bacteria becoming fish, and from fish to amphibia, and from amphibia to reptiles, and from reptiles to mammals, is a tremendous amount of change in comparison to such small-scale cases of evolution. Evolution appears to have limits, especially in multicellular organisms. There is no reason to think evolution is unbounded, and such an extropolation appears to have little basis in fact. Breeders understand no matter what traits they try to breed into or out of their dogs, that they will never produce a horse or cat. And the finches on the Galapagos Islands still remained finches, and their beaks returned back to normal when the rains returned. This demonstrates that there appear to be limits within the biological information of complex organisms, and such limits can't be gotten beyond unless new amounts of biological information are somehow inserted (which you'd posit would be God??).

Therefore we come back to what I was originally saying. If it is rejected that macroevolutionary processes could occur on their own (as indeed noone really knows the mechanism(s) by which "evolution" occured—see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html), then why should one continue positing large-scale evolution, even though God is still needed to intervene to insert new biological information to produce new "kinds of complex life"?

Kurieuo.

Kurieuo wrote:
Now hopefully I have shown that such types of evolution are generally not questioned, except perhaps by those not entirely familiar with their position and these concepts. Yet, the type of evolution you refer to is only small-scale—what has come to be associated to as microevolution. Microevolution, as I'm sure you are aware, includes concepts such as mutation, recombination, and natural selection. However, to extropolate this to say bacteria becoming fish, and from fish to amphibia, and from amphibia to reptiles, and from reptiles to mammals, is a tremendous amount of change in comparison to such small-scale cases of evolution. Evolution appears to have limits, especially in multicellular organisms. There is no reason to think evolution is unbounded, and such an extropolation appears to have little basis in fact. Breeders understand no matter what traits they try to breed into or out of their dogs, that they will never produce a horse or cat. And the finches on the Galapagos Islands still remained finches, and their beaks returned back to normal when the rains returned. This demonstrates that there appear to be limits within the biological information of complex organisms, and such limits can't be gotten beyond unless new amounts of biological information is somehow inserted.

Therefore we come back to what I was originally saying. If it is rejected that macroevolutionary processes could occur on their own (as indeed noone really knows the mechanism(s) by which "evolution" occured—see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html), then why should one continue positing large-scale evolution, even though God is still needed to intervene to insert new biological information to produce new "kinds of complex life"?

Kurieuo.

The problem is that we wouldn't expect to see macroevolution at work today, simply because evolution is such a new concept, and I suspect macroevolution would take quite a bit of time. I do not doubt that it is possible for a bacteria to turn into a fish, and since nobody can provide me with an alternate PROCESS that has some evidence backing it up, I have no choice but to accept it. I do not believe God just flashed species into existance, as He never seems to work that way in the Bible. Him transforming something(just look like humanity's creation) into something else seems to be the standard.

MM wrote:The problem is that we wouldn't expect to see macroevolution at work today, simply because evolution is such a new concept, and I suspect macroevolution would take quite a bit of time. I do not doubt that it is possible for a bacteria to turn into a fish, and since nobody can provide me with an alternate PROCESS that has some evidence backing it up, I have no choice but to accept it.

Don't you know that some proposed mechanisms for evolution, such as punctuated equilibrium, match what you describe as "flashed species into existance"? Now it's not my fault if the data we have doesn't back a PROCESS in the way you desire. Obviously you adopt a form of gradual evolution only, but then you must explain why the fossil record does not accomodate this. Now you likely won't take my word for it, but gradual evolution "by itself" has been dismissed by many.

Back when Darwin was around, the fossil record did not display evidence of gradual evolution as it had jumps. Darwin's reply was: "The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory." However, "evolution" is highly adaptable. Now we have evolutionists who believe that although the fossil record is now completed in some areas, and reveals clear gaps in what would be expected of a gradual process, that some existing forms of life just spontaneously arose. As Eldredge explains:

"Standard evolutionary theory focuses on anatomical change through time by picturing natural selection as the agent that preserves the best of the designs available for coping with the environment. This generation by generation process, working on small amounts of variation, is thought to change, slowly but inexorably, the genetic and anatomical makeup of a population.

If this theory were correct, then I should have found evidence of this smooth progression in the vast numbers of Bolivian fossil trilobites I studied. I should have found species gradually changing through time, with smoothly intermediate forms connecting descendant species to their ancestors.

Instead I found most of the various kinds, including some unique and advanced ones, present in the earliest known fossil beds. Species persisted for long periods of time without change. When they were replaced by similar, related (presumably descendant) species, I saw no gradual change in the older species that would have allowed me to predict the anatomical features of its younger relative.

The story of anatomical change through time that I read in the Devonian trilobites of Gondwana is similar to the picture emerging elsewhere in the fossil record: long periods of little or not change, followed by the appearance of anatomically modified descendants, usually with no smoothly intergradational forms in evidence.

If the evidence conflicts with theoretical predictions, something must be wrong with the theory. But for years the apparent lack of progressive change within fossil species has been ignored or else the evidence--not the theory--has been attacked. Attempts to salvage evolutionary theory have been made by claiming that the pattern of stepwise change usually seen in fossils reflects a poor, spotty fossil record. Were the record sufficiently complete, goes the claim, we would see the expected pattern of stepwise graduational change. But there are too many examples of this pattern of stepwise change to ignore it any longers. It is time to reexamine evolutionary theory itself.

There is probably little wrong with the notion of natural selection as a means of modifying the genetics of a species through time, although it is difficult to put it to the test. But the predicted gradual accumulation of change within species is seldom (if ever) encountered in our practical experience with the fossil record."

(Niles Eldredge, "An Extravagance of Species")

Additionally Dr. Donald Prothero points out, "Even their detractors concede that Eldredge and Gould were the first to point out that modern speciation theory would not predict gradual transitions over millions of years, but instead the sudden appearance of new species in the fossil record punctuated by long periods of species stability, or equilibrium. Eldredge and Gould not only showed that paleontologists had been out-of-step with biologists for decades, but also that they had unconsciously trying to force the fossil record into the gradualistic mode."—http://www.skeptic.com/01.3.prothero-punc-eq.html

Now, it is not for me to disprove a theory, and I in no way wished to do so in this thread which has now been dragged off-topic from my original simple statements. I'm quite happy for you to hold to your "macroevolution," it doesn't matter to me one iota, and now I'm a little annoyed that I ended up in such a discussion! There is nothing I find more futile than debating "evolution." Yet, the burdon of proof is on the one proposing the theory.

So getting back to my original statements before I unknowingly got taken into a discussion I did not want, RTB provide a model, and a process that not only aligns with nature but also with Scripture. Their model has confirmation from the fossil record, and also explanatory power of how life could arise so early in Earth's history, be wiped out, and then arise again so quickly. Which brings us back to the origin of life probem, which is indeed related on a philosophical naturalist level to "evolution"...

MM wrote:I do not believe God just flashed species into existance, as He never seems to work that way in the Bible. Him transforming something(just look like humanity's creation) into something else seems to be the standard.

That's nice, though many Christian theologians don't agree with you in their exegesis on Scripture. Perhaps I could encourage you to research why many reject "evolution" as aligning with the Genesis creation account?

Kurieuo.