Evidence for God from Science

I need help! The more I study the list of evidences for evolution the more I'm losing my faith in evolution..

Well yes, that's a good thing, that's what I wanted to do. I was curious do you all as creationists, like me, ever study any pro evolution material? You know, just to put your views to the acid test so to speak? I'm currently looking at a evolution wikipedia type site called evopedia, (there is also a creationpedia as well). But on the evopedia site it lists all the major creation arguments against evolution (like the ones presented on this site) as well as responses to the arguments. It's really neat how they have the site laid out. But I'd just thought I throw that in there.

How does this prove evolution? If ID were correct, what would stop God from using similar DNA? You suggest that he must use different DNA each and every time?

Actually, if was it was simply that humans had 1 less chromosome pairs than the great apes, it would disprove the evolutionary relationship between humans and apes as currently understood - unless two ape chromosomes showed up as fused into one human chromosome. The fusion hypothesis was proposed as a possible answer to the different numbers of chromosomes. Researchers then went looking for a fusion of chromosomes, and they found that human chromosome 2 contained embedded telomeres (telomeres mark the ends of chromosomes) AND the two "halves" human chromosome 2 are very similar to ape chromosomes that would otherwise be missing in the human genome.

This neither proves evolution nor disproves ID, but it strengthens the case for evolution or makes the "designer" look like he's purposely trying to deceive us.

More here,

waynepii wrote:

How does this prove evolution? If ID were correct, what would stop God from using similar DNA? You suggest that he must use different DNA each and every time?

Actually, if was it was simply that humans had 1 less chromosome pairs than the great apes, it would disprove the evolutionary relationship between humans and apes as currently understood - unless two ape chromosomes showed up as fused into one human chromosome. The fusion hypothesis was proposed as a possible answer to the different numbers of chromosomes. Researchers then went looking for a fusion of chromosomes, and they found that human chromosome 2 contained embedded telomeres (telomeres mark the ends of chromosomes) AND the two "halves" human chromosome 2 are very similar to ape chromosomes that would otherwise be missing in the human genome.

This neither proves evolution nor disproves ID, but it strengthens the case for evolution or makes the "designer" look like he's purposely trying to deceive us.

More here,

Here is a short explanation that shows how that is not quite as cut and dried as that article suggests:
http://www.reasons.org/chromosome-2-bes ... -evolution

vickers_m wrote:Well yes, that's a good thing, that's what I wanted to do. I was curious do you all as creationists, like me, ever study any pro evolution material? You know, just to put your views to the acid test so to speak? I'm currently looking at a evolution wikipedia type site called evopedia, (there is also a creationpedia as well). But on the evopedia site it lists all the major creation arguments against evolution (like the ones presented on this site) as well as responses to the arguments. It's really neat how they have the site laid out. But I'd just thought I throw that in there.

Of course we study pro-evo material. Even attend classes and purchase pro books about it. That is why I'm losing my faith in it...

But then again, we have to know what you mean by evolution..

August wrote:

waynepii wrote:

How does this prove evolution? If ID were correct, what would stop God from using similar DNA? You suggest that he must use different DNA each and every time?

Actually, if was it was simply that humans had 1 less chromosome pairs than the great apes, it would disprove the evolutionary relationship between humans and apes as currently understood - unless two ape chromosomes showed up as fused into one human chromosome. The fusion hypothesis was proposed as a possible answer to the different numbers of chromosomes. Researchers then went looking for a fusion of chromosomes, and they found that human chromosome 2 contained embedded telomeres (telomeres mark the ends of chromosomes) AND the two "halves" human chromosome 2 are very similar to ape chromosomes that would otherwise be missing in the human genome.

This neither proves evolution nor disproves ID, but it strengthens the case for evolution or makes the "designer" look like he's purposely trying to deceive us.

More here,

Here is a short explanation that shows how that is not quite as cut and dried as that article suggests:
http://www.reasons.org/chromosome-2-bes ... -evolution

Nobody is claiming the fusion of chimp chromosomes 2A & 2B to form human chromosome 2 is probable, but neither is it impossible. The fact that this type of fusion has very low probability explains why it not seen very often. It is also highly unlikely that 05, 18, 30, 41, 44, 45 with a Bonus of 37 will win the Irish lottery (previously known as the "Irish [Hospital] Sweepstakes") - but it did on April 27 (rather it would have had someone picked the combination). But the highly improbable does sometimes happen - on April 23 one ticket DID have the correct numbers and its owner won 3,315,499 Euro tax-free.

Further, I doubt that the fusion resulted in a human being directly (the first "chimp" to have the fused chromosome had to be sufficiently "chimp" to successfully breed or else the fused chromosome would have died out). So what was the "designer's" rationale for the fusion? To lead those who practice the scientific method away from believing in him?

My eyes hurt from reading all of those posts

My advice is: Try a little faith, and see how that changes the picture. Also, from the limited knowledge I have, several things in Evolution are Theories

They may be true, but they may be false

The funniest thing about theories is that several of them have been refuted as the years went on. I really wished I could live to be 200 yrs old, and see the "future"scientist laugh at the previously proposed Theories that thought to bare so much veracity

Wayne, I don't look to start an argument, but your statements prompted me to at least point something out.

You seem to be accusing God of trickery here... or at least planting misleading information. I don't think you have the proper authority to do so, quite frankly. You (or I should say, people) are the ones using this information to point to an end. That's hardly God's fault, actually it isn't his fault at all.

FearlessLlearsy wrote:The funniest thing about theories is that several of them have been refuted as the years went on. I really wished I could live to be 200 yrs old, and see the "future"scientist laugh at the previously proposed Theories that thought to bare so much veracity

Try reading a pro-evolution book written in the 1950s or 1960s.

FearlessLlearsy wrote:My eyes hurt from reading all of those posts

My advice is: Try a little faith, and see how that changes the picture. Also, from the limited knowledge I have, several things in Evolution are Theories

A "theory" as used in science is quite different from the common usage of the term. Gravity is also a [scientific] theory.

They may be true, but they may be false

The funniest thing about theories is that several of them have been refuted as the years went on. I really wished I could live to be 200 yrs old, and see the "future"scientist laugh at the previously proposed Theories that thought to bare so much veracity

Which scientific theories are you referring to?

Gman wrote:

vickers_m wrote:Well yes, that's a good thing, that's what I wanted to do. I was curious do you all as creationists, like me, ever study any pro evolution material? You know, just to put your views to the acid test so to speak? I'm currently looking at a evolution wikipedia type site called evopedia, (there is also a creationpedia as well). But on the evopedia site it lists all the major creation arguments against evolution (like the ones presented on this site) as well as responses to the arguments. It's really neat how they have the site laid out. But I'd just thought I throw that in there.

Of course we study pro-evo material. Even attend classes and purchase pro books about it. That is why I'm losing my faith in it...

But then again, we have to know what you mean by evolution..

Well what kind of books do you all read then? And can you refute them? I saw someone trying to refute Dawkins God Delusion book somewhere on this site and he was only able to respond to three measly chapters. I don't know I'm under the inkling that you all do not read pro evolution material and avoid it like the plague.

Maytan wrote:Wayne, I don't look to start an argument, but your statements prompted me to at least point something out.

You seem to be accusing God of trickery here... or at least planting misleading information. I don't think you have the proper authority to do so, quite frankly. You (or I should say, people) are the ones using this information to point to an end. That's hardly God's fault, actually it isn't his fault at all.

No, I'm not accusing - just asking what reason he might have had for doing something which looks so supportive of evolution. Even Dr. Fazale Rana says (lifted from the article linked from August's post) ...

I concur that the evidence strongly suggests that human chromosome 2 appears to be a fusion product.

... he goes on to say (so as not to cherry-pick)

But upon careful reflection, I do not see support for the notion of common descent, but rather for the handiwork of a Creator.

... which is to be expected. I find his rationalization for this to be less than compelling, which is also to be expected.

EDIT - Unintended double negative ("I fail to find his rationalization for this to be less than compelling ...").

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sh ... hp/id/1392

Miller's "prediction" of Neo-Darwinian evolution is not a hard prediction of his theory: if common ancestry is true, Miller predicts that there must have been a fusion event. But the converse is not true. The presence of this fusion event in no way requires that common ancestry is true.

Sounds like begging the question to me.

jlay wrote:http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sh ... hp/id/1392

Miller's "prediction" of Neo-Darwinian evolution is not a hard prediction of his theory: if common ancestry is true, Miller predicts that there must have been a fusion event. But the converse is not true. The presence of this fusion event in no way requires that common ancestry is true.

Sounds like begging the question to me.

AFAIK No one is claiming that the fusion of chimp 2A&2B into human 2 requires or proves common ancestry. As I explained in a previous post to this thread, fusion of two chromosomes was proposed as an explanation of the disparity in chromosome count between other great apes (chimps, bonobos, etc) which have 48 and humans which supposedly shared ancestry but have only 46. When technology and knowledge made such research feasible, researchers looked for a fused chromosome - and found it.

Had they not been able to find the predicted fused chromosome, it would have been a strong argument against a common ancestor between great apes and humans. At that point, common ancestry would have had to be reconsidered unless some alternative hypothesis was proposed which adequately explained the difference in chromosome count. As with the fusion hypothesis, at the point at which technology and knowledge allows, the hypothesis would eventually be rigorously tested and either supported or discarded based upon the results.

vickers_m wrote:

Telstra Robs wrote:The fact that humans have one fewer chromosome than apes
How does this prove evolution? If ID were correct, what would stop God from using similar DNA? You suggest that he must use different DNA each and every time?

I dunno It looks as though we came from them, if it wasn't so would there be even MORE differences?

Are the similarities between the iPhone and the iPad indication that one evolved from the other? No, actually they are indication of a common designer.

The fact that apes and humans are similar at a genetic level is not indication that one is the evolutionary parent of the other or that they share an evolutionary parent.

Telstra Robs wrote:From what I know of metamorphosed axolotls, aren't they just using existing DNA to continue to grow, shutting off a hormone to prevent metamorphosis (which can be added artificially in order to induce metamorphosis) so they can live a fully aquatic life when terrestrial living is impossible? It isn't the creation of a new species, merely an existing species with a tiny change, causing it.... not to grow up?

Well the creationist in me thinks this could be another example of a creative "mosaic" while the evil evolutionist in me thinks this is direct evidence for a water bounded species trying to evolve into a land dweller. It's difficult to say.

How is this evidence of a water-bound species "trying" to evolve into a land dweller?

Telstra Robs wrote:I don't know how this proves evolution? Are you suggesting that without evolution, animal life would be restricted to one area?

I know evolutionists love to use this but as far as whether or not it fits creation or evolution is hard to tell.

According to evolutionary theory ,if a species of animals separated into several populations and then continued to evolve the separate populations would evolve into completely different animals since they would be affected by different environmental impacts and completely different mutations. So the only way that a species can be distributed throughout the planet would be the same whether the animals evolved or were created: they would have to travel there.