Evidence for God from Science

In other words: people made a big deal about nothing. As usual.

Really; adapting to stuff is just about half of all that bacteria do, besides maybe eating and being eaten. And multiplying. And also adapting.

Frankly, I think if you want to test if there's such a thing as Macro Evolution or not with larger creatures, you should look some place other than a type of organism that's purpose is prominently to turn into(even if slightly more than slightly) different types of organisms.

Hugh Ross and the gang did a Science News Flash podcast on this topic last night, it was very good, just go to Reasons.org and click on the podcasts tab.

Gman wrote:The next atheists that says that science does not or can't address "ultimate" questions to the origins of life I'm going to pound on them with this supposed find...

I believe the position is that Evolution does not address the origin of life.

I would agree with your that hard science cannot address ultimately the origin, but I would say that most atheists would not agree with you.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Gman wrote:The next atheists that says that science does not or can't address "ultimate" questions to the origins of life I'm going to pound on them with this supposed find...

I believe the position is that Evolution does not address the origin of life.

Thanks, I will now prove my point.. What I'm saying here is the supposed "science."

Well that is what I would call a verbal place holder because the "origin of life" or "abiogenesis" beliefs are always taught along with evolutionary biology. Now of course some scientists would say that it doesn't relate to evolutionary beliefs however all we have to do is open college biology book to see the philosophical or religious implications.. That being abiogenesis is clearly taught in biology classes along with evolutionary theory. Darwinian evolution is the philosophical glue that holds it all together (supposedly). It is NOT science… This Biology book below called "Biology: Concepts and Connections" (copyright 2008) explains very clearly the origin and evolution of microbial life through prokaryotes and protists. Now anyone can purchase this book then read the various sections on "The Origin of Species" and the "The Origin and Evolution of Microbial Life: Prokaryotes and Protists." Here is one example..

Table of contents.

III. CONCEPTS OF EVOLUTION
13. How Populations Evolve
14. The Origin of Species
15. Tracing Evolutionary History

Under the subject “Tracing evolutionary History” and 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.

First and foremost, abiogeneis has nothing to do biology. Molecules don’t evolve, they react. Before life begins there is only chemistry (and some physics). Chemistry is repeatable and testable. The book, however, is clearly using the mechanisms of abiogenesis to promote it's view for, in this case, macroevolution.

My point here is that one's religious or philosophical views will at some point collide.. In this case the naturalistic religious viewpoint is being augmented... Of course they won't call it "abiogenesis" but nonetheless they are trying to find out how life arose to support the evolutionary view. In NASA's find they are simply trying to find life on other planets, but we all know what the philosophical implications are.. Let's just be truthful about it..

In other words we might say we are talking just "raw" science but in the end it will at some point turn into a philosophical or religious view..

Let's face it. We are just being human with our "built in" philosophical beliefs..

To deny that, is to say I'm not really human...

Abiogenesis is the line where chemistry becomes biology.
Research in this area comes under the domain of science but not under the theory of evolution.

As of now there are no concrete experiments showing that this did indeed occur.
However, theories of how it could have occurred are the basis of ongoing research.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Abiogenesis is the line where chemistry becomes biology.
Research in this area comes under the domain of science but not under the theory of evolution.

As of now there are no concrete experiments showing that this did indeed occur.
However, theories of how it could have occurred are the basis of ongoing research.

It's always good to see you back BGood. How are you?

I've been good Good to see you as well, how has your walk with Christ been going?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Abiogenesis is the line where chemistry becomes biology.
Research in this area comes under the domain of science but not under the theory of evolution.

As of now there are no concrete experiments showing that this did indeed occur.
However, theories of how it could have occurred are the basis of ongoing research.

Yes, but my claim is that atheists are saying that real "science" does not address ultimate questions, not specifically evolution, but since we are talking about evolution now, or in this case chemical evolution, it's all part of the philosophy of science also. Like you said there is nothing concrete about it, however it apparently can make it into science books. Questions like "How did life arise?" are philosophical in nature... Again, raw science really shouldn't be addressing these kind of issues, but apparently it does. Why?, because man is philosophical in nature. That is why we find it everywhere, in politics, economics, religion, and yes even science...

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:I've been good Good to see you as well, how has your walk with Christ been going?

A daily struggle, I presume the way it was meant to be. But with more and more appreciation. Thanks for asking and keep in touch.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:I've been good Good to see you as well, how has your walk with Christ been going?

Always good to see you BGood. Hope you're doing well.

also good to see you!!

Good to see all of you! I hope all is well.