Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:

hatsoff wrote:what we do know, which is that biodiversity has its origin in evolution by natural selection.

Natural selection on its own can not account for all the diversity we see. It is certainly far from an agreed consensus in the scientific community.

I believe it can, Natural Selection dictates that only the animals with the necessary genes can survive in a certain environment. However genetic mutation has a degree of randomness to it. In this case gene's mutate that have absolutely not use to an animal, it's not necessarily a bad gene, it just doesn't do anything.

I understand that we do not have a complete model of the origin of life, yet with every discovery we get a little bit closer.

Every time somebody dies evolution is occurring, and that's why I believe in it. When you compare animals which live in very different environments, the similarities of closer animals become so much more apparent. Most animals have mouths, and eyes, and ears, teeth, blood, muscle look at all those things we share!

Look at algae, it is far more diverged, there is also a correlation with time which justifies why it is more diverse.

Also birds and dinosaurs co-existed. It's possible that birds are descendants of dinosaurs, As velociraptor like animals where observed to have feathers. The chicken has been traced back to be a descendant of the T-rex to my knowledge.

This image is not the basis for my theory, it just agrees with it.



Either way, Evolution doesn't have enough evidence to answer all the questions, yet it still has more evidence than the creationist theory. I'm very open to the existence of a god, and some God creating all life. Yet the Creationist theory I can not see as fact, in my mind.

Kurieuo wrote:Natural selection on its own can not account for all the diversity we see. It is certainly far from an agreed consensus in the scientific community.

To my knowledge, we can count the number of biologists who reject evolution on one hand. As for those biologists who accept evolution and also happen to be Christian or otherwise religious, I'm not sure as to their number, or what view they have on the scope of natural selection to explain all biodiversity. If they are responsible scientists, however, then they keep their religious opinions outside the lab.

hatsoff wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Natural selection on its own can not account for all the diversity we see. It is certainly far from an agreed consensus in the scientific community.

To my knowledge, we can count the number of biologists who reject evolution on one hand. As for those biologists who accept evolution and also happen to be Christian or otherwise religious, I'm not sure as to their number, or what view they have on the scope of natural selection to explain all biodiversity. If they are responsible scientists, however, then they keep their religious opinions outside the lab.

Come to think of it ... so would those methodological naturalists who have extended things beyond science and into the realm of philosophy and metaphysics. But we don't see that all that often either, do we?

Enginseer,

I'm very open to the existence of a god, and some God creating all life.

Your profile says that you are a christian, is this not correct?

Yet the Creationist theory I can not see as fact, in my mind.

Which creationist theory are you talking about?

Also birds and dinosaurs co-existed. It's possible that birds are descendants of dinosaurs, As velociraptor like animals where observed to have feathers.

I already pointed out that birds predate their "transitional ancestors."

Most animals have mouths, and eyes, and ears, teeth, blood, muscle look at all those things we share!

Animals have had most of these characteristics since the first animals appeared in the Cambrian explosion. These did not evolve, they show up with no ancestors (as I have already described). We know the ocean's chemistry, oxygen content and the earth's envoronment as a whole would not allow animals before the Avalon or Cambrian explosions. As soon as these conditions were changed almost every phyla which has ever existed show up at once. They did not evolve, because they had nothing to evolve from.

I understand that we do not have a complete model of the origin of life, yet with every discovery we get a little bit closer.

No we have not gotten closer. We have discovered how much more difficult it is. From multiple techniques scientists have discovered that to get any life requires the cell to have hundreds of functioning genes. That is for a parasite, which needs a host. To get one that lives on its own requires about 1,000-1,200 genes. Of course you have to build a cell in which to put this and everything else needed. The first evidence for life on earth show that multiple life forms existed. This occured right after the late-heavy bombardment (~3.85 bya). It would be quite incredible to evolve life during the bombardment which often evaporated the oceans and melted the earth's crust.

hatsoff wrote: To my knowledge, we can count the number of biologists who reject evolution on one hand. As for those biologists who accept evolution and also happen to be Christian or otherwise religious, I'm not sure as to their number, or what view they have on the scope of natural selection to explain all biodiversity. If they are responsible scientists, however, then they keep their religious opinions outside the lab.

How can you divorce religion out of science? Everyone is religious... Whenever you take science and question the meaning or origin of life like Darwin did in his book “Origin of Species” and others, then you are making a belief system out of science, the answer for everything, your concerns, a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. You are making a religious philosophy.. Either with or without a deity.

Enginseer wrote: I understand that we do not have a complete model of the origin of life, yet with every discovery we get a little bit closer.

Either way, Evolution doesn't have enough evidence to answer all the questions, yet it still has more evidence than the creationist theory. I'm very open to the existence of a god, and some God creating all life. Yet the Creationist theory I can not see as fact, in my mind.

Well that is a bunch of malarkey.. The more we look at macro-evolution the more we discover how little it can do. And yet you say evolution doesn't have enough evidence to answer all the questions... However, apparently it does.. Why? Because you stated that you can't see the creationists theory as a fact in your mind. Therefore evolution IS providing you enough evidence that "answers all the questions" to dispel the creationists views. You are simply making for yourself a religious philosophy..

Enginseer wrote:Also birds and dinosaurs co-existed. It's possible that birds are descendants of dinosaurs, As velociraptor like animals where observed to have feathers. The chicken has been traced back to be a descendant of the T-rex to my knowledge.

This image is not the basis for my theory, it just agrees with it.

I'll try to remember that the next time I see a giant chicken chasing me at the jurassic park..

Here is the response to that idea..

//www.godandscience.org/evolution/dinobir ... IPVsqlGgIS

It seems obvious to me that evolution does not need to be defined. Rather Evangelical Christian needs to be defined. Either evolution through natural selection contradicts Evangelical Christian doctrine or is does not. I read about half the posts in this thread and I see grown ups dancing around a definition that is the same, your calling it evolution, hes calling it theistic evolution, shes calling it such and such evolution. Evolution does not in any way predict or assume to predict how life started, how that first biological piece of matter was formed from previously un-biological matter. It only, and I mean only, predicts how biological forms will behave in the future. It only, and I mean only, explains how life got to where it is currently once it started.

Now the original poster asked if an Evangelical Christian can believe in evolution. Well, I will not tell you the answer, but perhaps I can help you find it. First off define Evangelical Christian. Given a definition of Evangelical Christian, that you accept, can evolution acceptance co exist in you with Evangelical Christianity belief. If the answer is no then you cannot be both an Evangelical Christian and accept evolution. If yes then you can be an Evangelical Christian and accept evolution.

I am suggesting you go about it this way because the way you worded your question suggest that you already consider your self an Evangelical Christian, but are considering if evolution can fit in your world view while keeping Evangelical in as well. Well as I said not going to tell you an answer to that, I don't have the....conceit...I guess to presume to do so. Your world view is, well, guess what its yours. But hey here is a few words of encouragement,

Plenty of Christians have rejected evolution into their world view and is has not negatively impacted their life.
Plenty of Christians have accepted evolution into their world view and it has not negatively impacted their life.

I didn't jump on the subject like everyone else on whether evolution is a valid scientific theory or not because if your considering it already, your considering it already, why interrupt?

Pint

Pint wrote:I Evolution does not in any way predict or assume to predict how life started, how that first biological piece of matter was formed from previously un-biological matter. It only, and I mean only, predicts how biological forms will behave in the future. It only, and I mean only, explains how life got to where it is currently once it started.

The ToE relies heavily on origin of life, and necessarily so.

Descent relies on ancestral relationships. How does the ToE predict that life arose only once, or multiple times? Given the various ancestor/descendant models predicted, single/multiple OOL is an integral part of the theory, as it determines the subsequent development of life, given the minimum requirements to proceed. Following on from that, if the ToE makes no assumptions or predictions on the OOL, how was it determined that a single cell ancestor gave birth to multi cell descendants? In addition, how is the fossil record explained as representative of either a single lineage with a single abiogenesis event, or multiple lineages from multiple OOL events? Does the ToE predict a movement from the simple to the complex or not?

The ToE simply cannot proceed without specific concepts of abiogenesis. The very starting point for the ToE hinges on the definition of the UCA, and how complex that genome was, or whether there were several ancestors that contributed to the genome. Right now the generally accepted theory of evolution states that there was a single, simple UCA, a clear assumption and a clear prediction of OOL. Therein lies a commitment to a natural origin for DNA, and the naturalist prediction for OOL.

One cannot explain a series without accounting for the first in the series.

Pint wrote:Evolution does not in any way predict or assume to predict how life started, how that first biological piece of matter was formed from previously un-biological matter. It only, and I mean only, predicts how biological forms will behave in the future. It only, and I mean only, explains how life got to where it is currently once it started.

Well that isn't true at all..

Abiogenesis (although they don't call it that anymore) is clearly taught in biology classes along with evolutionary theory. Darwinian evolution is the philosophical glue that holds it all together (supposedly).

As an example, under the subject “Tracing evolutionary History” you will see the conditions on early earth which made the origin of life possible (according to evolutionary beliefs). Under the topic, “How Did Life Arise?” It clearly states “observations and experiments that have led scientists to believe that chemical and physical processes on early earth have produced very simple cells through a sequence of 4 main stages:

1. The abiotic (nonliving) synthesis of small organic molecules, such as amino acids and nucleotides

2. The joining of these small molecules into macromolecules including proteins and nucleic acids

3. The packaging of these molecules into "protobionts,” droplets with membranes that maintain an internal chemistry different from that of their surroundings.

4. The origin of self-replicating molecules that eventually made inheritance possible. In the next two modules, we examine some of the evidence for each of these four stages. “ Biology: Concepts and Connections" (copyright 2008) Pg. 294.

Source:

This is clearly an evolutionary process from the books perspective. The whole chapter devotes itself to evolution and how life arose from nonliving matter… Evolution IS being used by scientists to explain the origins of life.. Plain and simple

Furthermore, it appears that pot shots are being taken in scientific college books against people of faith.. The question is, what is this theological statement doing in a anthropology book?

“The relationship between science and religion has never been easy. While both serve, in their own ways, to explain phenomena, scientific explanations are based in data analysis and interpretation. Religion, meanwhile, is a system of beliefs not amenable to scientific testing and falsification; it is based in faith. “ page 39, Essentials of Physical Anthropology. 2008.

Source:

The problem here is that certain scientific beliefs are ALSO faith based, so where do you draw the line?

Pint wrote:I Evolution does not in any way predict or assume to predict how life started, how that first biological piece of matter was formed from previously un-biological matter. It only, and I mean only, predicts how biological forms will behave in the future. It only, and I mean only, explains how life got to where it is currently once it started.

August wrote:The ToE relies heavily on origin of life, and necessarily so.

Descent relies on ancestral relationships. How does the ToE predict that life arose only once, or multiple times? Given the various ancestor/descendant models predicted, single/multiple OOL is an integral part of the theory, as it determines the subsequent development of life, given the minimum requirements to proceed. Following on from that, if the ToE makes no assumptions or predictions on the OOL, how was it determined that a single cell ancestor gave birth to multi cell descendants? In addition, how is the fossil record explained as representative of either a single lineage with a single abiogenesis event, or multiple lineages from multiple OOL events? Does the ToE predict a movement from the simple to the complex or not?

The ToE simply cannot proceed without specific concepts of abiogenesis. The very starting point for the ToE hinges on the definition of the UCA, and how complex that genome was, or whether there were several ancestors that contributed to the genome. Right now the generally accepted theory of evolution states that there was a single, simple UCA, a clear assumption and a clear prediction of OOL. Therein lies a commitment to a natural origin for DNA, and the naturalist prediction for OOL.

One cannot explain a series without accounting for the first in the series.

Concerning the assertion you finished with. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ?, 7, ?, ?, ?, 11....... Sir/Ma'am what number came before the number 1? Doing so is abiogenesis. Looking at one and then seeing what follows it, and then what follows that, and seeing what follows that and after seeing enough of the pattern to be able predict past events coming towards you in time, and then continue on with the predictions going away from you is evolution theory. I know my analogy seems overly simple. I just made it up so it would need to be (hehehehe), but something just before I was about to hit post occurred to me. Man was counting things for a very long time with out a concept of "zero" I am not a mathematician but as I recall from reading on a related subject the idea of zero is a separate concept of math. So perhaps my analogy will work for this.

Theory of Evolution does say that there was one common ancestor at one moment in time, and it was simple, and it was the only show in town. It does not cover how that very first common ancestor was formed out of non biological matter. That is the realm of the abiogenesis hypothesis/theories. There is a clean cut there, theory of evolution stops dead in its tracks there it goes no further. Do abiogeneis theories pick up at that instant? Yes they do. Evolution in a sense has done its work backwards and gives abiogenesis a merry

Pint

Pint wrote:

Pint wrote:I Evolution does not in any way predict or assume to predict how life started, how that first biological piece of matter was formed from previously un-biological matter. It only, and I mean only, predicts how biological forms will behave in the future. It only, and I mean only, explains how life got to where it is currently once it started.

August wrote:The ToE relies heavily on origin of life, and necessarily so.

Descent relies on ancestral relationships. How does the ToE predict that life arose only once, or multiple times? Given the various ancestor/descendant models predicted, single/multiple OOL is an integral part of the theory, as it determines the subsequent development of life, given the minimum requirements to proceed. Following on from that, if the ToE makes no assumptions or predictions on the OOL, how was it determined that a single cell ancestor gave birth to multi cell descendants? In addition, how is the fossil record explained as representative of either a single lineage with a single abiogenesis event, or multiple lineages from multiple OOL events? Does the ToE predict a movement from the simple to the complex or not?

The ToE simply cannot proceed without specific concepts of abiogenesis. The very starting point for the ToE hinges on the definition of the UCA, and how complex that genome was, or whether there were several ancestors that contributed to the genome. Right now the generally accepted theory of evolution states that there was a single, simple UCA, a clear assumption and a clear prediction of OOL. Therein lies a commitment to a natural origin for DNA, and the naturalist prediction for OOL.

One cannot explain a series without accounting for the first in the series.

Concerning the assertion you finished with. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ?, 7, ?, ?, ?, 11....... Sir/Ma'am what number came before the number 1? Doing so is abiogenesis. Looking at one and then seeing what follows it, and then what follows that, and seeing what follows that and after seeing enough of the pattern to be able predict past events coming towards you in time, and then continue on with the predictions going away from you is evolution theory. I know my analogy seems overly simple. I just made it up so it would need to be (hehehehe), but something just before I was about to hit post occurred to me. Man was counting things for a very long time with out a concept of "zero" I am not a mathematician but as I recall from reading on a related subject the idea of zero is a separate concept of math. So perhaps my analogy will work for this.

Theory of Evolution does say that there was one common ancestor at one moment in time, and it was simple, and it was the only show in town. It does not cover how that very first common ancestor was formed out of non biological matter. That is the realm of the abiogenesis hypothesis/theories. There is a clean cut there, theory of evolution stops dead in its tracks there it goes no further. Do abiogeneis theories pick up at that instant? Yes they do. Evolution in a sense has done its work backwards and gives abiogenesis a merry

Pint

Interesting post. Petty there's not a shred of evidence for your assertions...

Gman wrote:

Pint wrote:Evolution does not in any way predict or assume to predict how life started, how that first biological piece of matter was formed from previously un-biological matter. It only, and I mean only, predicts how biological forms will behave in the future. It only, and I mean only, explains how life got to where it is currently once it started.

Well that isn't true at all..

Abiogenesis (although they don't call it that anymore) is clearly taught in biology classes along with evolutionary theory. Darwinian evolution is the philosophical glue that holds it all together (supposedly).

As an example, under the subject “Tracing evolutionary History” you will see the conditions on early earth which made the origin of life possible (according to evolutionary beliefs). Under the topic, “How Did Life Arise?” It clearly states “observations and experiments that have led scientists to believe that chemical and physical processes on early earth have produced very simple cells through a sequence of 4 main stages:

1. The abiotic (nonliving) synthesis of small organic molecules, such as amino acids and nucleotides

2. The joining of these small molecules into macromolecules including proteins and nucleic acids

3. The packaging of these molecules into "protobionts,” droplets with membranes that maintain an internal chemistry different from that of their surroundings.

4. The origin of self-replicating molecules that eventually made inheritance possible. In the next two modules, we examine some of the evidence for each of these four stages. “ Biology: Concepts and Connections" (copyright 2008) Pg. 294.

Source:

This is clearly an evolutionary process from the books perspective. The whole chapter devotes itself to evolution and how life arose from nonliving matter… Evolution IS being used by scientists to explain the origins of life.. Plain and simple

Furthermore, it appears that pot shots are being taken in scientific college books against people of faith.. The question is, what is this theological statement doing in a anthropology book?

“The relationship between science and religion has never been easy. While both serve, in their own ways, to explain phenomena, scientific explanations are based in data analysis and interpretation. Religion, meanwhile, is a system of beliefs not amenable to scientific testing and falsification; it is based in faith. “ page 39, Essentials of Physical Anthropology. 2008.

Source:

The problem here is that certain scientific beliefs are ALSO faith based, so where do you draw the line?

And he goes past the Defence...and it's a slam dunk!!

Gman wrote: Well that isn't true at all..

Abiogenesis (although they don't call it that anymore) is clearly taught in biology classes along with evolutionary theory. Darwinian evolution is the philosophical glue that holds it all together (supposedly).

As an example, under the subject “Tracing evolutionary History” you will see the conditions on early earth which made the origin of life possible (according to evolutionary beliefs). Under the topic, “How Did Life Arise?” It clearly states “observations and experiments that have led scientists to believe that chemical and physical processes on early earth have produced very simple cells through a sequence of 4 main stages:

1. The abiotic (nonliving) synthesis of small organic molecules, such as amino acids and nucleotides

2. The joining of these small molecules into macromolecules including proteins and nucleic acids

3. The packaging of these molecules into "protobionts,” droplets with membranes that maintain an internal chemistry different from that of their surroundings.

4. The origin of self-replicating molecules that eventually made inheritance possible. In the next two modules, we examine some of the evidence for each of these four stages. “ Biology: Concepts and Connections" (copyright 2008) Pg. 294.

This is clearly an evolutionary process from the books perspective. The whole chapter devotes itself to evolution and how life arose from nonliving matter… Evolution IS being used by scientists to explain the origins of life.. Plain and simple

Furthermore, it appears that pot shots are being taken in scientific college books against people of faith.. The question is, what is this theological statement doing in a anthropology book?

“The relationship between science and religion has never been easy. While both serve, in their own ways, to explain phenomena, scientific explanations are based in data analysis and interpretation. Religion, meanwhile, is a system of beliefs not amenable to scientific testing and falsification; it is based in faith. “ page 39, Essentials of Physical Anthropology. 2008.

The problem here is that certain scientific beliefs are ALSO faith based, so where do you draw the line?

Sir if you take evolution and replace it word for word with science your statement is absolutely correct. Scientists are using science to explain the origins of life. Scientists are using science to explain how life moves through time (that is evolution). It sounds like you are angry at science, at college, at biology, at the text books used.

You are suggesting that God is only capable of doing hand off plays. He is not capable of throwing a pass. He is certainly not capable of throwing a "hail Mary" (that's rather funny) You sir are suggesting that God is limited. He is not all powerful. Since God is all powerful when He snapped his fingers and the big bang happened, he could of predicted with 100% accuracy whether or not you were going to be born, with what particles down to the electron would be used to form you. That is what all powerful means. God had to explain genesis the way he did, or he showed Moses the event in person by bringing him out of time, and that is how Moses understood what he saw. In either case it was no limitation of God on how to write genesis, it was our limitation at the time genesis was written to understand.

I have a Pascal's wager for you.
A) God flexed his will and knew that man would arise out of the energy he released. He is just that awesome powerful. By not appreciating His might you are insulting him.
B) God flexed his will and made man and life by a process independent of natural explanation, because he is just that limited. By believing in A you are giving him a compliment he might not exactly be worthy of, but who doesn't like compliments that are fudged just a little?

Pint

DannyM wrote:
And he goes past the Defence...and it's a slam dunk!!

It would of been a slam dunk if not for the double dribble, thrown elbow, extra player on the court and a rim that is 2 feet off the ground. If doing so makes you feel like a superstar, well good for you sir!

For the original poster.

Evolution is not abiogenesis unless you substitute "science" for "evolution" when it suits you. I proposed a definition of evolution in as few words as possible that describes what its boundaries are. I did it that way because just tossing out an answer to "Can an Evangelical Christian accept evolution" with "evolution is fact" or "evolution is not fact" in addition to being unethical is also not helpful for you personally given how the question was asked.

I would warn you against making the same mistake that the gentlemen who have heckled my attempt to help you find an answer, that mistake is this; Do not substitute the word "evolution" for "science" and then ask your self the same question again. Evolution is a finite theory, it only explains why life has acted the way it has once it came into being. The originator of the theory said it best with his chosen title "The Origin of Species", he did not title it "The Origin of Life"

Pint