Evidence for God from Science

Thadeyus wrote:I can't resist the post. My terrible sense of humor getting the bets of me. Though it is only partially 'Tongue in cheek'.

So, RickD? Are we going to ask you to prove your links as well?

*Continues to giggle on their side of the screen* Sorry mate, couldn't resist.

Thadeyus,

The links speak for themselves. If I assert something such as , "progressive creationism is a fact", then yes, you can and should ask me to prove my assertion.

And, I don't know why you're asking me this anyways. I didn't tell Neo to prove anything. I believe by posting his links, he was trying to make his case for evolution.

Kurieuo wrote:Here is what I'm kind of seeing.

Definition of Evolution (hijacked by Theists who believe in evolution): "Purposeful teleological process that works itself out over time via natural processes, producing the diversity in life that we see through earlier life forms, according to what was planned in the beginning ."

Definition of Evolution (hijacked by Atheists and generally understood by Theists with an anti-evolution mentality): "Undirected purposeless process, produces the diversity in life that we see through earlier life forms, according to random natural processes like natural selection acting on random mutations."

Now I see in mainstream evolution as taught in our educated Western societies, is that of an undirected and random process. Such words are very often used. It is hard to avoid. Any misunderstanding is surely forgivable? Since the minute such words are invoked, is the minute any possibility of divine planning (i.e., Theism) is lost.

I'm not saying anything of the whether this is right or wrong... it just is what is generally understood and taught, no? Philosophies of the day are often sadly hidden behind the language and hidden behind "science".

Evolution (philosophically neutral): Anyone want to give an philosophically neutral "scientific" definition?

Evolution is change over time in it's simplest way of expressing it.
Evolution is the name given to the process where random mutations are seen as beneficial by a living organism and are "kept" and passed one to future generations.
Evolution is what we call it when a living organism's random mutations are adapted to its ability to survive.
Etc, etc...
There are countless ways to define evolution without putting in words that lead to unfounded conclusions.

RickD wrote:Thadeyus,

The links speak for themselves. If I assert something such as , "progressive creationism is a fact", then yes, you can and should ask me to prove my assertion.

And, I don't know why you're asking me this anyways. I didn't tell Neo to prove anything. I believe by posting his links, he was trying to make his case for evolution.

Ah, cool. So they're just things you coincide in believe in in as well, then?

Not that they are facts?

Or have I missed something?

Here is an up-to-date view on evolution:
http://biologos.org/blog/series/evolution-basics

It covers pretty much everything one may want to know about evolution.

Thadeyus wrote:

RickD wrote:Thadeyus,

The links speak for themselves. If I assert something such as , "progressive creationism is a fact", then yes, you can and should ask me to prove my assertion.

And, I don't know why you're asking me this anyways. I didn't tell Neo to prove anything. I believe by posting his links, he was trying to make his case for evolution.

Ah, cool. So they're just things you coincide in believe in in as well, then?

Not that they are facts?

Or have I missed something?

By "things" do you mean my progressive creation beliefs? Yes, progressive creationism is a belief. I don't call it a fact. I can argue the points that I see in PC. But I would argue as my personal beliefs that I believe the evidence points to.
That was my whole point from the beginning of this whole mess. If Neo said "this is what I believe evolution is, and this is why I believe evolution is true". And then proceeded to post links backing his belief, then I would never have had an issue.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Here is what I'm kind of seeing.

Definition of Evolution (hijacked by Theists who believe in evolution): "Purposeful teleological process that works itself out over time via natural processes, producing the diversity in life that we see through earlier life forms, according to what was planned in the beginning ."

Definition of Evolution (hijacked by Atheists and generally understood by Theists with an anti-evolution mentality): "Undirected purposeless process, produces the diversity in life that we see through earlier life forms, according to random natural processes like natural selection acting on random mutations."

Now I see in mainstream evolution as taught in our educated Western societies, is that of an undirected and random process. Such words are very often used. It is hard to avoid. Any misunderstanding is surely forgivable? Since the minute such words are invoked, is the minute any possibility of divine planning (i.e., Theism) is lost.

I'm not saying anything of the whether this is right or wrong... it just is what is generally understood and taught, no? Philosophies of the day are often sadly hidden behind the language and hidden behind "science".

Evolution (philosophically neutral): Anyone want to give an philosophically neutral "scientific" definition?

Evolution is change over time in it's simplest way of expressing it.
Evolution is the name given to the process where random mutations are seen as beneficial by a living organism and are "kept" and passed one to future generations.
Evolution is what we call it when a living organism's random mutations are adapted to its ability to survive.
Etc, etc...
There are countless ways to define evolution without putting in words that lead to unfounded conclusions.

Notwithstanding serious questions as to the explanatory power of natural selection acting on random mutations being enough to account as the vehicle of evolution...

I'm wondering as a Theistic Evolution how do you reconcile:

"the process where random mutations are seen as beneficial by a living organism and are "kept" and passed one to future generations."

with the more directed process you previously mentioned:

"As a believer I find that God creating life with the ability to do this [evolve] is far more impressive than creating life "as is"."

Let me pose this question: Were the mutations that lead to humanity truly random, or ultimately planned and destined by God to happen when creating life?

Kurieuo wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Here is what I'm kind of seeing.

Definition of Evolution (hijacked by Theists who believe in evolution): "Purposeful teleological process that works itself out over time via natural processes, producing the diversity in life that we see through earlier life forms, according to what was planned in the beginning ."

Definition of Evolution (hijacked by Atheists and generally understood by Theists with an anti-evolution mentality): "Undirected purposeless process, produces the diversity in life that we see through earlier life forms, according to random natural processes like natural selection acting on random mutations."

Now I see in mainstream evolution as taught in our educated Western societies, is that of an undirected and random process. Such words are very often used. It is hard to avoid. Any misunderstanding is surely forgivable? Since the minute such words are invoked, is the minute any possibility of divine planning (i.e., Theism) is lost.

I'm not saying anything of the whether this is right or wrong... it just is what is generally understood and taught, no? Philosophies of the day are often sadly hidden behind the language and hidden behind "science".

Evolution (philosophically neutral): Anyone want to give an philosophically neutral "scientific" definition?

Evolution is change over time in it's simplest way of expressing it.
Evolution is the name given to the process where random mutations are seen as beneficial by a living organism and are "kept" and passed one to future generations.
Evolution is what we call it when a living organism's random mutations are adapted to its ability to survive.
Etc, etc...
There are countless ways to define evolution without putting in words that lead to unfounded conclusions.

Notwithstanding serious questions as to the explanatory power of natural selection acting on random mutations being enough to account as the vehicle of evolution...

I'm wondering as a Theistic Evolution how do you reconcile:

"the process where random mutations are seen as beneficial by a living organism and are "kept" and passed one to future generations."

with the more directed process you previously mentioned:

"As a believer I find that God creating life with the ability to do this [evolve] is far more impressive than creating life "as is"."

Let me pose this question: Were the mutations that lead to humanity truly random, or ultimately planned and destined by God to happen when creating life?

Ooooh, a paradox!

PaulSacramento wrote:Here is an up-to-date view on evolution:
http://biologos.org/blog/series/evolution-basics

It covers pretty much everything one may want to know about evolution.

I've bookmarked and will read through this site progressively.

I'm personally kind of interested to read what TE believes at the source, mainly because many (Neo, yourself and others) appear to be on the rise... bypassing Progressive Creation positions for whatever reasons.

hughfarey wrote:

pat34lee wrote:There is a finite boundary on this chart. Inbreeding and mutations cause genetic damage as you move away from the center. The further out you move, the higher the amount of accumulated damage and/or loss of genetic variability as opposed to the original animals. The edges are marked by sterility or death of the individuals. Nothing moves from one chart, or 'kind' to another.

I have never seen any evidence that "The edges are marked by sterility or death of the individuals'; in fact quite the reverse. A single ancestral 'bird' or 'fish', for example, has broadened out, even within the bounds permitted by Progressive Creationists, into numbers of healthy thriving species. What's more, some of the species at the boundaries of each of your 'spreading-out charts' (such as the lobe-finned fishes with well-defined bones) are identical with species at the centre of other 'spreading-out charts', (such as the proto-amphibians). The finite chart analogy is a useful comfort blanket for determined creationists, but bears no resemblance at all to what is actually observed.

Actually, it is exactly what we see, in both plants and animals. Dog and cat breeds show that inbreeding too closely may give certain desired characteristics, but only at the cost of the health of the animals. "Pure breeds", or extensively inbred animals, especially ones that are physically far from the norm, almost all have genetic defects which can cause blindness, asthma, arthritis and diabetes among other health problems. With many today, only human intervention keeps the breed alive.

Kurieuo wrote: Notwithstanding serious questions as to the explanatory power of natural selection acting on random mutations being enough to account as the vehicle of evolution...

I'm wondering as a Theistic Evolution how do you reconcile:

"the process where random mutations are seen as beneficial by a living organism and are "kept" and passed one to future generations."

with the more directed process you previously mentioned:

"As a believer I find that God creating life with the ability to do this [evolve] is far more impressive than creating life "as is"."

Let me pose this question: Were the mutations that lead to humanity truly random, or ultimately planned and destined by God to happen when creating life?

I am not convinced that "natural selection" is the driving force for evolution.
As for random mutations, when science says "random" it means that the mutation happened without a established purpose.
That mutation then was found beneficial and "kept" ( some say by natural selection).
Think of it this way, solar radiation causes a mutation that makes some wolves to grew thicker hair, because of that hair they can go further north into colder climates and they do, according to some "natural selection" selects that mutation as benefitial and passes it on to the next generation and so forth.
The mutation was random BUT the selection process wasn't.
Now, to you question as to whether mutations are random or guided by God:
I would think that it can be a cause of BOTH and not either/or.
I don't see why God can't decide to use some mutations for a purpose.
When it comes to God, He can do anything He wants in regards to the creative process.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: Notwithstanding serious questions as to the explanatory power of natural selection acting on random mutations being enough to account as the vehicle of evolution...

I'm wondering as a Theistic Evolution how do you reconcile:

"the process where random mutations are seen as beneficial by a living organism and are "kept" and passed one to future generations."

with the more directed process you previously mentioned:

"As a believer I find that God creating life with the ability to do this [evolve] is far more impressive than creating life "as is"."

Let me pose this question: Were the mutations that lead to humanity truly random, or ultimately planned and destined by God to happen when creating life?

I am not convinced that "natural selection" is the driving force for evolution.
As for random mutations, when science says "random" it means that the mutation happened without a established purpose.
That mutation then was found beneficial and "kept" ( some say by natural selection).
Think of it this way, solar radiation causes a mutation that makes some wolves to grew thicker hair, because of that hair they can go further north into colder climates and they do, according to some "natural selection" selects that mutation as benefitial and passes it on to the next generation and so forth.
The mutation was random BUT the selection process wasn't.
Now, to you question as to whether mutations are random or guided by God:
I would think that it can be a cause of BOTH and not either/or.
I don't see why God can't decide to use some mutations for a purpose.
When it comes to God, He can do anything He wants in regards to the creative process.

Do you have a source for solar radiation causing mutation to make wolves hair grow thicker? Interested to know more, particularly why this isn't simply a form of epigenetic inheritance or phenotypic plasticity?

Re: natural selection, such is ultimately survival of the fittest. It doesn't cause change, but removes the weaker species -- that which can not/do not adapt to their environment. So as you say, it really can't be the driving force of evolution. It is just a logical process in the equation that leads to extinction of a species that is no longer fit to survive in its environment and cannot migrate elsewhere.

So then, re: God and evolution, you see a little of both -- some mutations as purposeful (e.g., I suppose those that lead to humanity), while God in other instances just let evolution randomly unfold.

To turn away from physical science, towards Christian theology (as both side of the coin are obviously relevant here)... How do you see the role of Holy Spirit in the world? The person in the Trinity who is often considered the sustainer of life. I basically consider the Holy Spirit as being responsible for everything holding together such as natural laws, spatio-temporal dimensions, mass, energy, matter, etc all run in a stable and predictable manner. This also has a follow on effect, such that God really is omnipresent in His creation, saturating every part of it, such that chaos does not reign but rather predictable and structured natural processes. Is it really possible to think that God is devoid, or withholds himself, from any of His creation such that something can happen without His sustaining power?

Kurieuo wrote: Do you have a source for solar radiation causing mutation to make wolves hair grow thicker? Interested to know more, particularly why this isn't simply a form of epigenetic inheritance or phenotypic plasticity?

Re: natural selection, such is ultimately survival of the fittest. It doesn't cause change, but removes the weaker species -- that which can not/do not adapt to their environment. So as you say, it really can't be the driving force of evolution. It is just a logical process in the equation that leads to extinction of a species that is no longer fit to survive in its environment and cannot migrate elsewhere.

So then, re: God and evolution, you see a little of both -- some mutations as purposeful (e.g., I suppose those that lead to humanity), while God in other instances just let evolution randomly unfold.

To turn away from physical science, towards Christian theology (as both side of the coin are obviously relevant here)... How do you see the role of Holy Spirit in the world? The person in the Trinity who is often considered the sustainer of life. I basically consider the Holy Spirit as being responsible for everything holding together such as natural laws, spatio-temporal dimensions, mass, energy, matter, etc all run in a stable and predictable manner. This also has a follow on effect, such that God really is omnipresent in His creation, saturating every part of it, such that chaos does not reign but rather predictable and structured natural processes. Is it really possible to think that God is devoid, or withholds himself, from any of His creation such that something can happen without His sustaining power?

The solar radiation - thick fur thing was just an example.
While solar radiation has been shown to be one of the causes od mutation, I don't know of there is a direct link to thicker fur, it was just an illustration.
I have come to see that much in life, theology and science, is rarely a case of either/or as much as some people make it up to be.

The HS is a thread unto itself, truly.
There is so much of the HS in everything.
When we speak of God's HS, that is the sustaining force of the universe.
When we speak of the HS as our advocate, we speak of Christ.
When we speak of the HS as He that seals us, that is the Person of the HS.