Evidence for God from Science

Barabus wrote:I thought I already answered this. Sun....fact. Evolution...theory. Keep in mind , though, a scientific theory isn't just some idea some quack came up with. If evlolution was on trial for murder, it would go to prison despite not having any witnesses present.

As I stated to you before in the other thread, it has mounds of evidence coroborating it and nothing that refutes it. I was plenty of reason to believe it and none not to believe. I don't need to watch a frog turn into a brid-like creature to believe that it happens and has happened, but no.....my belief in it isn't as string as, say, gravity. I have a hard time believing that God would have planted all of this evidence as some sort of test to trick us into thinking that nature works the way that it does. He created DNA and DNA behaves the way that it does. I have no reason to believe why he would magically block a natural process that he created just to keep a species from changing too much. We KNOW they change.......look at two different dogs. They only thing that can possibly keep them from changing enough to be separate species given enough time (and boy did they have it) would be direct divine intervention.

Sorry....I went off on a tangent.

Mounds of evidence and nothing that refutes it... Ok, but what do you mean by evolution? Big changes or the smaller changes?

Mounds of evidence and nothing that refutes it... Ok, but what do you mean by evolution? Big changes or the smaller changes?

When I refer to evolution I mean pretty much what the evolutionist scientists mean. Pardon me for not knowing your background, but evolution has always been about tiny changes. Given enough generations, however, as well as changes in environmental conditions, and these tuny changes over time amount very large changes.

To use selective breeding in dogs (only as an analogy), you can't mate two wolves and create a Great Dane. It will NEVER happen. You breed to wolves together and you will always, 100% of the time, get wolf as a product.....but it will be a slightly different wolf much like you are slightly different than your parents. If you select the genes properly, over enough generations (in this case only a few 1000 years I believe) you can turn one branch of wolf into great danes while the other branch you turn into toy poodles.

Will it ever turn into something other than a dog? Probably, but not in a single generation. What we call dogs now will likely be a different species than what they will become (if not extinct) in a few 100,000 years.....or they might not, depending on the environmental conditions that they deal with. Aligators have gone pretty much unchanged for over 100 million years. Cockroaches have lasted even longer.

For someone to disbeleive that this happens, that is tiny changes compounded over millions of years, I'd love for them to tell me by exactly what mechanism they think it is that restricts the mutations such that they will change, chasnge, change, but.....oops.....no more changing because you'll be too different than your great ancestor was. It only takes less than a 1% difference in DNA for a change in species.

For a description of how new species evolve see http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/e ... tion.shtml.

Barabus wrote:When I refer to evolution I mean pretty much what the evolutionist scientists mean. Pardon me for not knowing your background, but evolution has always been about tiny changes. Given enough generations, however, as well as changes in environmental conditions, and these tuny changes over time amount very large changes.

So it seems what you are saying here is that the microevolutionary changes can lead to the macroevolutionary changes.

Barabus wrote:To use selective breeding in dogs (only as an analogy), you can't mate two wolves and create a Great Dane. It will NEVER happen. You breed to wolves together and you will always, 100% of the time, get wolf as a product.....but it will be a slightly different wolf much like you are slightly different than your parents. If you select the genes properly, over enough generations (in this case only a few 1000 years I believe) you can turn one branch of wolf into great danes while the other branch you turn into toy poodles.

Will it ever turn into something other than a dog? Probably, but not in a single generation. What we call dogs now will likely be a different species than what they will become (if not extinct) in a few 100,000 years.....or they might not, depending on the environmental conditions that they deal with. Aligators have gone pretty much unchanged for over 100 million years. Cockroaches have lasted even longer.

For someone to disbeleive that this happens, that is tiny changes compounded over millions of years, I'd love for them to tell me by exactly what mechanism they think it is that restricts the mutations such that they will change, chasnge, change, but.....oops.....no more changing because you'll be too different than your great ancestor was. It only takes less than a 1% difference in DNA for a change in species.

It appears that you are talking about the micro evolutionary (tiny) changes are leading to the bigger macroevolutionary changes using the different generations of species of dogs or specifically canis lupus. Ok, first question. Before we jump to light speed to C. lupus, can we even reproduce life from non-living chemicals (via chemical evolution) to jump start this process that would eventually lead to the common ancestor of C. lupus? If you could, I think you would have a claim here. Second question, as for the micro evolutionary changes leading to the bigger macroevolutionary changes, what scientific proof do we have for this claim?

Thanks..

waynepii wrote:For a description of how new species evolve see http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/e ... tion.shtml.

Thanks waynepii.. Yes, we have descriptions of how new species evolve. But can we really produce new species in a lab? I wouldn't deny that we could find something that would fit that term, but is it really a new species? I'm not convinced that the fruit fly experiment was a successful event.

Gman wrote:Yes, we have descriptions of how new species evolve. But can we really produce new species in a lab? I wouldn't deny that we could find something that would fit that term, but is it really a new species? I'm not convinced that the fruit fly experiment was a successful event.

If you have a lab with a long enough lease (a couple million years should suffice) to accumulate enough "microevolutionary" changes to qualify as a "macroevolutionary" change.

Staying with the C. Lupis example, a chihuahua and a great dane are both dogs but are already unlikely to interbreed (*ouch* ) after only a relatively short period of "tuning". Continued "tweaking" to both branches of the experiment should get them far enough apart in "only" a million years or so. Admittedly, this experiment uses artificial selection rather than natural, but they both use the same genetic mechanism and using artificial selection is much faster.

The inclusion of "designers" in our hypothetical experiment brings up an interesting point - the presence of a "designer" should result in drastically faster change (shown by the speed at which domesticated plants and animals are designed). So if a "designer" were involved in real-world development of species, why did the process take so long? Was the designer deliberately trying to mask his involvement for some reason? Was the designer just less capable than we at using his own tools?

So it seems what you are saying here is that the microevolutionary changes can lead to the macroevolutionary changes.

Correct.

It appears that you are talking about the micro evolutionary (tiny) changes are leading to the bigger macroevolutionary changes using the different generations of species of dogs or specifically canis lupus. Ok, first question. Before we jump to light speed to C. lupus, can we even reproduce life from non-living chemicals (via chemical evolution) to jump start this process.........

I don't see how that is relavent. What does producing life from non-life have to do with evolution?

Lets assume from some new fangled science experiment I was able to prove that God created life out of nothing....lets even say that I could prove that he wiped out the dinosaurs and *poof* created lots of tiny mamals 65 million years ago. In addition to this I was able to prove that, in fact, you cannot create life from the combination of non-living chemicals. So what? What does that have to do with the evolution of that life from point A (life with DNA) to point B (different life with DNA)?

So the answer to your first question is that it is an irrelavent question. It seems that you are conflating abiogensis with evolution. Perhaps you are also conflating it with the Big Bang theory and the concept of a Godless universe....or rather one absent of design. Again, I can only assume, but I have had these discussions before and the topic of abiogenesis is usally the first step toward derailing the discussion toward "how did this all happen without God?".....which is odd because I stated up front that I believe God is the creator of everything.

Second question, as for the micro evolutionary changes leading to the bigger macroevolutionary changes, what scientific proof do we have for this claim?

"Proof?" We don't have any proof, which is why evolution is a theory. What we have is evidence. If its "proof" that you are seeking, might I suggest that you first renounce your faith as you have no proof that God exists....that is, of course, if you want to remain consistent. ; ^ )

If you care to look at the evidence, there are countless books on the subject.

Don't suppose you'd like to propose an alternate theory. 65 million years ago there were no large mamals. Today we have tons of large mamals. Our fossil record shows, at a very minimum, that mamals that exist today did not exist then. If they did not evolve.........well, what are you suggesting happened?

If you hold evolution to this unreasonable standard,

testable and observable is now unreasonable.

Our fossil record shows, at a very minimum, that mamals that exist today did not exist then.

Talk about a straw man.
Does every creature from every time have a fossil. No. in fact the overwhelming majority of animals will never fosillize. The lack of fossils does not prove something did not exist. What happens when we find species that are millions of years old that are essentially unchanged today?

And consider the very term species. Science can't even agree on what it means. So, if you have a loose term, and you create a "new" species, then man and chimps share a common ancestor. Another straw man. http://www.biology-online.org/articles/ ... cepts.html

We can observe diversity. No one is arguing that. We can observe natural selection. No one is arguing that.

I find it interesting that in tring to define "faith"--by which surely we mean the biblical concept--not a single reference has been made to the words we actually translate as "faith": specifically, aman and pistis.

The former means to declare something steadfast or capable of doing its purpose. The latter has a broader range of meanings, including the idea of persuasions of persuasion and entrusting. Importantly, it is used in the LXX to translate the Hebrew word, which means the Hebrew concept must come through.

Faith is not belief in absence of evidence. It is not intellectual assent. It is not moral commitment to a person or idea. It can best be termed "reliant trust." It is intellectual in that it assents to the truthfulness of a claim; it is volitional in that it relies upon that claim (which is not the same as to say it is obedient to one making the claim!).

Thus, to have faith in Christ--to believe in Him--is to rely upon Him, and upon Him alone, for the thing in question, be it salvation, sanctification, etc.

There is, then, no necessary distinction, dialogue, or disagreement between science and faith. Science is only a branch of human knowledge that comes from the observed world. It is inductive in nature. I know this, scientifically, because I have observed it, made a guess about what made it happen, repeated my proposed circumstances, and observed again the same result. To have a scientific "belief" is no different than having a theological belief. Both are based on evidence. The question is the quality of the evidence (as well as its type). In any case, both are based on evidence.

Put still differently, science, in the popular sense of the word, is a method. You can apply that method to theology or to physics. Faith is not a method. It is a choice based on being persuaded by evidence (be that good or bad evidence).

testable and observable is now unreasonable.

Do you believe in God?

Does every creature from every time have a fossil.

What you are suggesting is that the overwhelming amount of evidence that would take a small library to fill is all one giant coincidence. The body of evidence as a whole simply can't be discussed in a couple of paragraphs on an internet forum. As I have typically come to expect, any time a pertinent example is given......which, mind you, is but one small example encompassing a single paragraph from this small library.....the same counter arguemnt is given, that being that there could be another explanation for whay that one piece of evidence alone does not lead to clonclude the reality of evolution.

So might I safely assume based on your argument that you are of the belief that all animals existed 100s of millions of years ago and that the fosil record is misleading? You are, prehaps, suggesting that some of those animals would not fosilize for long periods of time and then start fosilizing at some point in time where we mistakenly believe that they began to exist in that form.

Do you have a link to any research supporting this hypothesis, or was this an idea you concocted yourself. If so, what data and/or rationale do you have to back up this notion?

So what I have read so far is that there is a mysterious genetic blocker that we have yet to discover that limits the amount of mutating a line of organisms can undergo such that they will change......but not too much. In addition, ring species and fly experiements, despite coroborating what our understanding of gentic mutation would lead us to believe, don't really amount to anything. Finally, fosil records are misleading because some animals just fosilize at different points in histroy than others. While we are on the subject, can I assume that carbon dating as well as isotope dating from lava flows are also inaccurate? Maybe someone has a theory that dinosaur bones are in lower layers of the earth because big bones sink faster.

Oh......and we have to be able to observe something actually happen in order to reasonably believe it, yet we all believe in God.

Do you believe in God?

God has proved himself to me over and over. That has nothing to do with it.

I have no problems with the observations or the evidence. Only the interpretations there of.

While we are on the subject, can I assume that carbon dating as well as isotope dating from lava flows are also inaccurate?

Do really need to bring in all the variables that can affect carbon dating. And carbon dating isn't really even viable when you are talking millions of years. thousands sure.

Do you believe in God?
.
.
.
and we have to be able to observe something actually happen in order to reasonably believe it, yet we all believe in God

Can you give me a mathematical proof that Abraham Lincoln uttered the words of the Gettysburg address? Can you give me a scientific proof 2+2=4? Can you give me a historical proof that the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second?

There are different kinds of facts, which is the reason that there are different disciplines, i.e., history, math, the sciences, and philosophy. (That is, a scientific fact is not a historical fact is not a mathematical fact is not a philosophical fact.) All evidences are testable, but to test something presupposes a tool to test it with, and not all tools must be laboratory tools. Historians have a very well defined set of tools. Mathematicians have a very well defined set of tools. Philosophers have a very well defined set of tools. So do scientists.

Because scientists deal with the physical universe that exists now, their tools must necessarily be physical tools that measure the universe as it is now. So "tests" deal with that which is now. The belief in God is not, ultimately, a scientific question. It is a philosophical question. Some may think that devalues the validity of the question, but in claiming as much, they only demonstrate their own ignorance of the nature of knowledge and proof. Just because something does not fit under the heading of science does not mean it is not real knowledge. Again, I know George Washington was the first President of the United States, and that has nothing to do with chemistry, biology, or physics. It has everything to do with history. Likewise, I know God exists, and while some (not all, but some) of my evidence comes from the physical realm tested and discussed by chemists, biologists, and physicists, all arguments are, in the end, philosophical and use the tools of logic and philosophy (i.e., validity and soundness) to come to firm and accurate conclusions.

If you choose to devalue philosophy only, let me ask you one question:

Give me a scientific, historical, or mathematical proof that the scientific method is the best way to "do science?" Or, again, give me a scientific, historical, or mathematical proof as to the definition of science.

You can't, for those are not scientific, historical, or mathematical questions. They are philosophical questions. Yet surely you believe the scientific method is the best way to do science. And surely you yourself have a defintion of science. And surely if I were to disagree with you, you would have arguments as to why I was wrong in my disagreement (whether you chose to express them or not). If, then, philosophy cannot be a valid marker of knowledge, then your entire reliance on science is itself undermined, for it itself is based on philosophical commitments.

jlay's point, then, stands vindicated. If anything claims to be scientific, it must be testable and observable, for that is the nature of the scientific method. If it is not, then we are not obligated to believe it, any more than I am obligated to believe a historical claim with no historical proof, a mathematical claim with not mathematical proof, or a philosophical claim with no philosophical proof. Present testable and observed evidence, and you can begin to build a case. But each of your evidences, and the arguments that stem from them, must be valid and sound before you can continue. You cannot put together hundreds of bad arguments to produce one big good one. If you put together a progressive case for evolution that is based on scientific (read: testable and observable) arguments, and if each of those arguments are valid and sound (that is, the conclusion necessarily follows from the evidence and cannot be explained in other ways), then you will have gone a long way in your case. But if each of the arguments in your progressive case can be explained in other fashions, then you just have a collection of bad arguments. And bad arguments don't prove anything, my friend.

God has proved himself to me over and over. That has nothing to do with it.

What kind of proof has he provided you that is greater than the abundance of evidence that we have for evolution.

Do really need to bring in all the variables that can affect carbon dating. And carbon dating isn't really even viable when you are talking millions of years. thousands sure.

Maybe you can explain to me why scientists don't agree with you. Where is it that you get such keen insight while they have gone so very wrong? Again, I suppose its a giant coincidence that all of the evidence points to the same answer when you can attack each individual piece as not being proof enough.

I'm still waiting for alternative answers.

If anything claims to be scientific, it must be testable and observable, for that is the nature of the scientific method

Then how did evoultion get accepted as a scientific theory if it is so clearly not science?

Barabus wrote:Then how did evoultion get accepted as a scientific theory if it is so clearly not science?

Now there is the question of the day.

What kind of proof has he provided you that is greater than the abundance of evidence that we have for evolution.

If you want my testimony, pmail me. As I said before, after the encounter on the road to Demascus, did Paul need faith to know that Jesus was Lord? No. But did need faith to live his life in obedience to Him. When you've had an encounter, you have all the proof you'll ever need.

When you say evolution, you are talking a word with a broad meaning. I agree, we have tons a lot of evidence for "evolution." I'd say that the majority of those here who aren't Darwinists agree with most of the what is encompassed under the term "evolution."
I could post about 1,000 or more quotes from evolutionists on the problems with Darwinism, and show you that many scientists don't agree with themselves. I think Gman and others have laid this out in great length. There is no point beating a horse fossil.

Maybe you can explain to me why scientists don't agree with you. Where is it that you get such keen insight while they have gone so very wrong? Again, I suppose its a giant coincidence that all of the evidence points to the same answer when you can attack each individual piece as not being proof enough.

So I should accept that man and chimp have a common ancestor because "everybody is doing it." In other words, peer pressure.

Anyway, that's the end of that rabbit trail for me.
Jac's point about faith, is a better tangent for this thread.