Evidence for God from Science

neo-x wrote:any interpretation depends upon the mindset, assumption, self preference, vocabulary and pre-existing belief. Make it litral or symbolic, Christians have been fighting over this even before the days of reformation. One thing we should all remember, God can surprise you any time, just when you think you got it ABSOLUTELY covered is when we may even be wrong. Remember Elijah, he was so sure that no one remained a prophet except him but God told him that there were others. so...

True
-
-
-

Murray,
I made a mistake in wording. Yes, everyone makes assumptions. I meant to say we should never make such assumptions. Based on your statement which I had quoted just prior in the post. The question isn't whether we make assumptions, but do they hold to sound reasoning and logic.

But you still have yet to explain, what EVIDENCE have you besides your assumtion that the english bible is literal, that the earth is young.
If your belief is due only in part to your assumtion, then this is quite pointless for me to debate you isnt it?

Apparently you failed to read my explanation regarding the bible and a literal interpretation. That is why I said you are making faulty assumptions about my hermanuetic. How can we debate if you keep misrepresenting my position, and not sticking to the subject at hand?
Regarding the age of the earth. Last I checked this wasn't a thread about answering that. but was about dinos and evolution. There are plenty of places on the internet to read about YEC positions and interpretations. As i've already said, everyone has the same evidence.

Honestly I've pretty much accepted by now that evolution did not occur in dinosaurs, it seems more likely that adaptation is responsible for the changes in dinosaurs.

I think since life appeared 3.8 billion years ago, and dinosaurs as such came around 230 million years ago, then it took 3.6 billion years or so for bacteria to evolve into multi-celled organisms, then those to go notochords, and vertebrate, fish, amphibians, primitive reptiles and finally dinosaurs.
Proof? Fossils.
Not all dinosaurs were big, some were the size of rats, for instance. But smaller creatures do not leave big bones that are easy to recover a couple of million years later.
Admittedly, some dinosaurs were much bigger than present day elephants, and it is believed this gigantism was allowed by the fact that, back then, the air contained 30% oxygen (as opposed to about 21% today). The missing oxygen was probably fixated by the raging fires that followed the asteroid impact that wiped out the large beasts.

jacobadam wrote:I think since life appeared 3.8 billion years ago, and dinosaurs as such came around 230 million years ago, then it took 3.6 billion years or so for bacteria to evolve into multi-celled organisms, then those to go notochords, and vertebrate, fish, amphibians, primitive reptiles and finally dinosaurs.
Proof? Fossils.
Not all dinosaurs were big, some were the size of rats, for instance. But smaller creatures do not leave big bones that are easy to recover a couple of million years later.
Admittedly, some dinosaurs were much bigger than present day elephants, and it is believed this gigantism was allowed by the fact that, back then, the air contained 30% oxygen (as opposed to about 21% today). The missing oxygen was probably fixated by the raging fires that followed the asteroid impact that wiped out the large beasts.

Their is fossil proof of evolution in dinosaurs you say?

There is certainly no fossil evidence of any of things you mention. NONE!

"I think."

When you say, "I think," what you are really saying, is ,"Based on imposing my evolutionary worldview on to the evidence, this is what I BELIEVE." That is a faith statement. A religious worldview.

We have fossils of plenty of small creatures and organisms. Fossils are not proof of evolution. They are evidence from the past that we can observe today. Your religious interpretation of the evidence is not, "proof." Nor is your acceptance of another's interpretation. That is a fundamental failing to rightly define 'proof.'

Evolution does not disprove the bible or God but only someones theological interpretation. On the idea of whether there is a God or not, good science yet remains neutral. Since God is tracing genes in the bible, doesn't that mean that God new about evolution before science? Does Genesis 30:39 where Jacob is dealing with the flocks of sheep reveals that God had taught him something about genes and how they are passed from generation to generation?

The things spoken about in Genesis 1 that God did in an instant mentally/Spiritually is still unraveling in the progress of time and Genesis 2:1-3 from the point of view of the physical has not yet happened. Now Adam was the start of a new segment of time called the Adamic age (of which the bible deals with) within a much older segment of time that could be millions or billions of years old. Adam was something new introduced to this world. Time is actually insignificant to the God. Genesis 6 speaks about Adam's offspring (called the Sons of God) being mixed with the humanoid evolved creatures, that were here before Adam, through their daughters. Noah was mixture and so are we. Adam's offspring introduced language and objectivity to the purely subjective and emotional world of the animal. Adam is the missing link that science has yet to find because of his origin as an angelic genes that were placed in a physical body his bones dissolved after death and so did his descendants that were giant. Not all were physical giants though but some mental and spiritual giants. Adam's genes remain on this planet but only mentally and spiritually