Evidence for God from Science

rick it is still called a theory, theory can be above scientific law as is the theory of gravity.

May I suggest to clarify this http://www.notjustatheory.com

While the author of this site confuses macro and micro evolution (micro is fact, macro is not) it does help to clarify the meaning of scientific laws, theory's, facts ect...

Rick, I do not like evolution. Would I prefer to believe in ID yes, I would. I go where scientific evidence leads and at this point in time there seems to be more evidence to support evolution. While macro evolution is not proven, it seems to be the most scientific provable theory out there.

I've read into ID, you might have known I used to be an theistic evolution, then I switched to OEC, now i'm to framework which is pretty similar to TE.

Think of this god made us and everything else pop out of nowhere right? Why did he stop? I do not see new dogs popping out of nowhere.

Evolution has not stopped, animals are still slowly adapting, we are even still adapting. Over a extremely long period of time those adaptations may lead to a creature in say 400k years that may be vastly superior to us.

Since we know and mainly accept micro evolution, it seems like macro is a stepping stone from it.

A quick add on, what do you think about this site?

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/

Think of this god made us and everything else pop out of nowhere right? Why did he stop? I do not see new dogs popping out of nowhere.

Evolution has not stopped, animals are still slowly adapting, we are even still adapting. Over a extremely long period of time those adaptations may lead to a creature in say 400k years that may be vastly superior to us.

Why do you think God made everything pop out of nowhere?
Evolution, in a microevolution sense, hasn't stopped. Macro evolution isn't a natural next step from micro evolution. It's a huge leap, actually. One might say, a leap of faith.

Murray wrote:A quick add on, what do you think about this site?

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/

It looks like a young earth creationist site. Their mocking of the Big Bang, shows that.

As an OEC I presume you accept the scientific way the earth was created, numerous phases, ect...

God did not pop the earth into the way it was from nothing, it slowly EVOLVED into what it is today. Started off simple, grew more complex, kind of like us eh?

When I say popped out of nowhere I mean after god made the earth inhabitable in 3 billion years, he decided to make all animals correct? So then he nods his head and there appears a turtle, then he nods his head then comes a fish, then comes adam and eve, out of thin air. Now with that in mind do you truly expect the majority of scientists to believe that? That is not testable science.


Evolution does not in any way shape or form disprove god. I still believe in adam and eve (first humans with god given soul).

The very existence of a state of life/being confirms the existence of a greater being.

When I say popped out of nowhere I mean after god made the earth inhabitable in 3 billion years, he decided to make all animals correct? So then he nods his head and there appears a turtle, then he nods his head then comes a fish, then comes adam and eve, out of thin air. Now with that in mind do you truly expect the majority of scientists to believe that? That is not testable science.

Can you please post bible verses that show animals and humans came out of thin air?

Well rick if not out of thin air then from where?

Murray wrote:Well rick if not out of thin air then from where?

From the dust of the ground, perhaps. Genesis 2:7

so men coming from dust is more scientifically testable than people appearing from air?

Murray wrote:so men coming from dust is more scientifically testable than people appearing from air?

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/sld007.html

That slide does not answer the question of how humans appearing from "dust" is scientifically testable.

ID does not argue how it is testable , they simply point out flaws in evolution.
An attack with no defense will never win a battle

Murray wrote:That slide does not answer the question of how humans appearing from "dust" is scientifically testable.

ID does not argue how it is testable , they simply point out flaws in evolution.
An attack with no defense will never win a battle

Murray, the text doesn't say humans "appeared" from the dust. What the text is saying IMO, is that God used what existed(dust of the ground), to form the physical part of man.
I'm not sure what you're looking to find, Murray. How does science prove things like the human mind(where thought originates), the soul of certain creatures, mathematical truths, absolute truths, etc.

Rick, I do not like evolution. Would I prefer to believe in ID yes, I would. I go where scientific evidence leads and at this point in time there seems to be more evidence to support evolution. While macro evolution is not proven, it seems to be the most scientific provable theory out there.

Murray, I couldn't disagree more with your assertion that macro evolution is the" most scientific provable theory out there.". I'm not going to debate you about that here, but there are plenty of links that discuss that.

I've read into ID, you might have known I used to be an theistic evolution, then I switched to OEC, now i'm to framework which is pretty similar to TE.

Murray, you're like a boat being tossed about by the sea. You study one system, believe that. Then study another, change your mind, and believe that. Oops, now I've studied framework, so I've changed my mind again. While I commend your determination, don't you see any problem with this?

RickD wrote:

Murray wrote:Well rick if not out of thin air then from where?

From the dust of the ground, perhaps. Genesis 2:7

Ouch... Embarrassing!

Murray wrote:While the author of this site confuses macro and micro evolution (micro is fact, macro is not) it does help to clarify the meaning of scientific laws, theory's, facts ect...

Micro vs. macro is a misnomer. We know that living organisms change - adaptation and natural selection are at work, but we have no evidence that it will lead to a species "evolving", so I don't see why those processes should be called "microevolution" or "whatever-evolution". If a fish adapts to toxic waters it lives in, it's still a fish - it won't grow legs and crawl out of the water, that's for sure.

Murray wrote:Rick, I do not like evolution. Would I prefer to believe in ID yes, I would. I go where scientific evidence leads and at this point in time there seems to be more evidence to support evolution. While macro evolution is not proven, it seems to be the most scientific provable theory out there.

How is it most provable if, after 150 years, it still hasn't been proven. It often seems like it's close, but there's always that little, tiny "if" or "maybe" in the way.

Murray wrote:I've read into ID, you might have known I used to be an theistic evolution, then I switched to OEC, now i'm to framework which is pretty similar to TE.

I flirted with YEC for a short time, but I settled with OEC when I finally examined all the evidence. You still haven't said why you abandoned OEC? You keep throwing some links at us like you want it to be true, you say that you don't like it, but you don't bring up any specific concerns about evolution. I must say that I don't understand you at all.

Murray wrote:Think of this god made us and everything else pop out of nowhere right? Why did he stop? I do not see new dogs popping out of nowhere.

Why would He? Since the species and the life-sustaining conditions were created, dogs have been able to breed perfectly well, there's no need for creating new ones.

Murray wrote:Evolution has not stopped, animals are still slowly adapting, we are even still adapting. Over a extremely long period of time those adaptations may lead to a creature in say 400k years that may be vastly superior to us.

Since we know and mainly accept micro evolution, it seems like macro is a stepping stone from it.

http://creation.com/don-t-fall-for-the-bait-and-switch

I've read into YEC, but you do not see me believing that. I still read into OEC but I do not believe that, I've read into gap creationism yet I do not believe that.....

And when did I discuss the manner of souls, thoughts ect...
I'm pretty sold on that being supernatural in a sense, but I fail to see logic of any level of "God used what existed(dust of the ground), to form the physical part of man". Certain things cannot be explained, such as the existence of life, by scientific means; but our creation shows evidence of a scientific explanation (evolution).
Science does not explain the resurrection of Jesus, but does that mean we should ignore science? Some thing can be explained unlike the resurrection, and our creation is certainly one that may be compatible with scientific explanation.