Evidence for God from Science

No...with the magic bullet thing. Haven't i allready said that there "probably is a god", isn't that on the right side of probably for you? Why would i Envoke evolution if i didn't think god was involved somehow?

ps i make mistake, i thought u talk about me

Kristoffer, my post wasn't to you. IT was to the new poster, the student.

which is why i said i make a mistake.

lol, we are crossing our lines, there....

ok, back to the regularly scheduled program...

cjdrox wrote:Hello all,

First, as a Biology student, I am appalled to see the way Evolution is handled here, so I thought I might as well shatter some myths here:

Myth #1: There is no unison among scientists about Evolution (so why should we bother if creationism is true or false?)

Wrong. There is NO discord whatsoever on if Evolution happened. Evolution DID happen, and it removes the necessity of a God to explain why nature is so.
Let me elaborate. Scientists, all of them, agree that Evolution happened, period. But they are in different views on the fact that exactly how it happened. Some go for 'regular' evolution, which is to say that speciation is a continuing, ongoing process, while some argue that speciation occurred in 'bursts'. Either way, evolution replaces God in the sense that there is no need of a God to explain the natural world. After all, that is how we are all taught; Why is the natural world so-an-so? 'coz God created it that way.

Huh? Scientists, all of them, agree that Evolution happened but they are in different views on the fact that exactly how it happened?? You just left the door open for an Intelligent Designer to fill the gaps. By your own admittance you answered your own question.. Thank you...

Issues about God will most likely naturally arise in biology classrooms whether design is mandated or not since the evolutionary theory was born in the theological cradle as it did with Darwin. You should probably study Darwin more closely..

cjdrox wrote:Anyone wants to argue? Please, let us do so and dispel this Myth. Then I will proceed on to Myth #2.

Argue over what? That scientists don't know exactly "how" it happened? We all agree with that.. They don't.

Wrong. There is NO discord whatsoever on if Evolution happened. Evolution DID happen, and it removes the necessity of a God to explain why nature is so.

Wrong. Just the word 'evolution' and how it is defined is not agreed upon. An evlolution doesn't remove anything. It is not a thing with philosophical ideas. I am amazed at how people will make statements like this, and not even see what they are saying. As if evolution is a being. No wonder it is viewed by many as a religion.

you know i think you are right, i agree EVILution is silly idea. So also is gravity, things hold to the earth because god wants them too. Sometimes god wants things to fly

In other words, "I can't back up what I'm saying," so I'll resort to kindergarten tactics.
Nice.

kindergarten is FUN! Btw why disbelieve evolution and not gravity? BOTH are facts, whos being a kinderchild now?

Kristoffer wrote:kindergarten is FUN! Btw why disbelieve evolution and not gravity? BOTH are facts, whos being a kinderchild now?

Can you prove that even one species has changed to another? No. There are aspects of evolution that are not fact, but theory. So please stop putting people down about it. We can feel the effects of gravity every minute of every day, but we do not see evolutionary change. I also believe that many "species" are not species at all, but variations of one species. If this is the case, then the ground rules (to give it a name) are not valid. I've experienced this first hand. Where I live, Black Widows are common. A couple of years ago, Brown Widows made it to California. They are very distinctive from Black Widows only by their coloration. Within a year, there were a number of widow spiders around that were inbetween in color, and after that, the brown widow was hardly seen - at least where I live. I haven't seen one in a while. As far as I can tell, the two widow spiders were not separate species at all, and they interbred. This seemed pretty obvious to me. Humans exhibit more variation between them than those widow spiders did. Us humans really like to categorize and separate things, and we also like to make a name for ourselves (in fact it's necessary at the university level). All this alters the "science" of biology and the theory of evolution. Trying to figure out the fossil record, with these things in mind, seems rather arrogant.

Kristoffer wrote:kindergarten is FUN! Btw why disbelieve evolution and not gravity? BOTH are facts, whos being a kinderchild now?

In regards to gravity, I don't think you can compare Darwinian evolution to gravity. When you look at the scientific methods of Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton they made observations plus predictions that anyone could observe… Darwinian evolution is not like that. DE is a different kind of science, it's a historical science that claims what happened in the past, it's not like gravity at all… There is a categorical difference between evolutionary science and gravity.. Gravity can make simple predictions like the gravitational force between the earth and the moon. It's something that can be measured.. You can't take Darwinism and formulate it to an equation like F=MA the force of gravity. Dawinism is NOT a law, you can't measure it.. It's all just speculation… And if you believed that life arose by chance processes, you have to believe that millions of years ago life arouse from non-life, from matter, and this violates the law of biogeneis. No scientist has ever showed this law could ever be violated.