Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

Able wrote:
I understand but I see no evidence life evolves at all,as I do not consider adaptation is evolution and I think saying evolution is just change over time is a watered down definition to make evolution more acceptable.I'm separating adaptation from life evolving.I do not doubt life can adapt but this is not evolution to me or what evolution has always been about,it has not been about life adapting but one kind of life evolving and changing into another kind of life like dinosaurs evolving into birds,etc I'm not even getting down to molecules I'm just talking about once the life is here it evolves.

Ok, thanks for clarifying, and I apologize for assuming you meant something that you didn't.

And I think this speaks to the confusion on this subject. There's really not an agreement of what evolution means, before the discussions start.

I think for the most part to be fair, when there's disagreement on what a term means, in order to argue against what someone believes, we should take the definition of the one who believes in it. That way we can properly argue against what they actually believe. Just like it wouldn't be fair if someone is discussing Jesus Christ with a believer, and he's arguing against the Jesus of Mormonism. It's just not fair. If you want to argue against what someone believes, why not concede and use their definition? You're certainly not agreeing that what they believe is true.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Able wrote:
I understand but I see no evidence life evolves at all,as I do not consider adaptation is evolution and I think saying evolution is just change over time is a watered down definition to make evolution more acceptable.I'm separating adaptation from life evolving.I do not doubt life can adapt but this is not evolution to me or what evolution has always been about,it has not been about life adapting but one kind of life evolving and changing into another kind of life like dinosaurs evolving into birds,etc I'm not even getting down to molecules I'm just talking about once the life is here it evolves.

Ok, thanks for clarifying, and I apologize for assuming you meant something that you didn't.

And I think this speaks to the confusion on this subject. There's really not an agreement of what evolution means, before the discussions start.

I think for the most part to be fair, when there's disagreement on what a term means, in order to argue against what someone believes, we should take the definition of the one who believes in it. That way we can properly argue against what they actually believe. Just like it wouldn't be fair if someone is discussing Jesus Christ with a believer, and he's arguing against the Jesus of Mormonism. It's just not fair. If you want to argue against what someone believes, why not concede and use their definition? You're certainly not agreeing that what they believe is true.

Id certainly agree there is a lot of confusion about it. Even the simplest and most concepts are dimly grasped
for the most part. A few days ago I exited a conversation with someone here who was insisting that abio is "foundational"
and when asked for a source gave me some apologetics site.

The problem is not confused science, its ignorance on the part of the confused.

Guaranteed a person will end up confused going to pop science or creosites for info.
May as well read tabloids for advice on cancer treatment.

I've seen so much goofy nonsense about evolution already in this thread, some well written, some in
trailer park English, but confused nontheless.
The word "facile" is hardly adequate.

I wonder what gives people the idea that they can hold forth on
a demanding topic they've never studied? Or what makes them think they
have studied


If their hairdresser, auto mechanic, or their kid's coach had done no more study, they'd
rightly come unglued at the resulting mess.

Im no big expert, tho I may be the only one here with a BSc in biology. Id bet a lot more that
I've spent more time around paleontologists, in lab, socially, in the field than everyone else here
multiplied by a hundred. I at least get the basics, have a feel for it. If I knew as much about
football I could hold my own "monday at the water cooler" and not talk about the rink or say pingpong
is foundational to football,

Confusion is inevitable if people dont make any effort or just pick up a little here and there. Usually
from creationist sites, where to lie is a way of life. On this forum I see people say with pride
"I dont believe evolution".

It has all the mature informed aspect of a child saying of new food "I dont like it, what is it?".

No, I take it back, the child is at least asking, the ones saying "I dont believe it" wouldnt be able
to pass the simplest true / false test about ToE. They dont know and dont want to know.

The only thing they know for sure is, they dont like it.

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:e="abelcainsbrother"]

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Let's not water down or be mistaken about what evolution has always been about and that is one kind of life evolving into another kind of life over time.Let's not play word games with evolution and yet my point is and still stands that there is no scientific evidence that proves,shows or demonstrates this can even happen,therefore it is true that those who believe life evolves believe it based on faith and assumptions.

When we look at viruses,bacteria,etc that is claimed to be evidence if we look for evidence life is evolving we do not see it in any of the evidence that we can look at,yet why do so many people believe life evolves?I believe people just choose to trust scientists scientific knowledge instead of looking at the evidence themselves,it comes down to faith and trust.

And this is no different than a christian choosing to believe preachers,teachers,etc teach and preach the word of God and they believe them by faith and trust even if they know nothing about science,etc. Yet a lot of times these people are made fun of and put down because they believe it by faith,the bottom line is you do too if you believe life evolves,you can deny it all you want to but you cannot believe life evolves without faith and trust in what scientists tell you.

This is why I see evolution is so much like a false religion.I have researched and studied false religions before and I find the same things in them that I found in evolution,they can teach and tell you all about their god,their religion and all of the things one must do but when you start looking for evidence and then compare it to biblical evidence you see the bible blows them away when it comes to evidence. Evolution is the same way even though I know people will cringe with me comparing it to a religion but I am anyway.

Evidence will change my mind so those who believe life evolves by faith I want to see evidence that demonstrates life evolves,do not go around this and talk about genetics,DNA,fossils, etc,no I want to see evidence one kind of life can evolve and change into another kind of life like you believe happens.

When a doctor does a throat culture by jamming a stick down your throat, he is checking to see what drugs your infection is susceptible to before treating you.

On farms, insecticide will often become ineffective because the insects will evolve in a way that allows them to live with that particular insecticide.
Weeds will often evolve resistant to herbicides in just a few years.

Years ago a worldwide attempt to cure malaria was foiled because the mosquitoes evolved resistant to DDT.

http://whyfiles.org/shorties/085fast_evolution/

These are examples of evolution people deal with everyday

Ken

I agree life can adapt to survive hostile environments as we can see examples all around us like bacteria that lives near radioactivity,but I want evidence life evolves,not adapts,please don't confuse the two,when life can adapts it remains the same kind of life,but if it evolves it changes into another kind of life,let's not get confused.You are showing us evidence life can adapt that nobody denies because we can see it and observe it without having to go into a lab.I want evidence one kind of life evolves and changes into another kind of life.Where is this evidence?

There is much that falls under the umbrella of Evolution. It appears what you call “adapting” science calls evolution. As I eluded to in the OP I can understand a person believing some evolutionary claims without believing all of them

K

OK but IMO you are giving them the benefit of the doubt that adaptation is life evolving.I know they say adaptation is a mechanism but I'm not convinced based on their own evidence.

RDK wrote:I have spoken to many atheists about the problems with evolution. They automatically know that I can't be like them, so they give me all kinds of trouble. A creature is designed as a system with all of their inter-related parts working in harmony to support it's life. Necessary parts are just not added one at a time until the animal is complete. Even simple life forms require a complex interplay between all of the working parts for it to sustain " that thing" we call life. It is just like trying to get your engine running with just one of it's needed parts missing. The car will go nowhere and can't "evolve" a new part before the vehicle dies. In other words, no new part CAN evolve since all of the needed ones are already there for life to continue.
The evo' theory gets even crazier when pair bonding began. At what point in the life of a non-sexual creature does the concept of "mate" come into play? Accidentally, a separate similar creature would have had to come along with all of the needed but opposite fully functioning parts that would be compatible with the first. Talk about the impossibility of a happen-chance like that. Just the timing of such an event would be completely unfathomable.
When an evolutionist sees adaptation, he automatically backdates all of this to the beginning of creation, but still cannot follow the logical steps that are required for the process to begin. Adaptation is happening in an animal that has specific "programming" for such changes to occur yet within the compatibility of the reproductive capabilities of the animal. If genetic agreement doesn't happen, there are no chances-no dogs mating with cats- to produce some new animal. Each animal group is unique to it's own and can't crossbreed. We, as humans, can be similar in many ways to apes, but we are still incompatible as mates.
The list of impossibilities would take me hours to mention. I will continue if someone is interested.

RDK wrote:I have spoken to many atheists about the problems with evolution. They automatically know that I can't be like them, so they give me all kinds of trouble. A creature is designed as a system with all of their inter-related parts working in harmony to support it's life. Necessary parts are just not added one at a time until the animal is complete. Even simple life forms require a complex interplay between all of the working parts for it to sustain " that thing" we call life. It is just like trying to get your engine running with just one of it's needed parts missing. The car will go nowhere and can't "evolve" a new part before the vehicle dies. In other words, no new part CAN evolve since all of the needed ones are already there for life to continue.
The evo' theory gets even crazier when pair bonding began. At what point in the life of a non-sexual creature does the concept of "mate" come into play? Accidentally, a separate similar creature would have had to come along with all of the needed but opposite fully functioning parts that would be compatible with the first. Talk about the impossibility of a happen-chance like that. Just the timing of such an event would be completely unfathomable.
When an evolutionist sees adaptation, he automatically backdates all of this to the beginning of creation, but still cannot follow the logical steps that are required for the process to begin. Adaptation is happening in an animal that has specific "programming" for such changes to occur yet within the compatibility of the reproductive capabilities of the animal. If genetic agreement doesn't happen, there are no chances-no dogs mating with cats- to produce some new animal. Each animal group is unique to it's own and can't crossbreed. We, as humans, can be similar in many ways to apes, but we are still incompatible as mates.
The list of impossibilities would take me hours to mention. I will continue if someone is interested.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Able wrote:
I understand but I see no evidence life evolves at all,as I do not consider adaptation is evolution and I think saying evolution is just change over time is a watered down definition to make evolution more acceptable.I'm separating adaptation from life evolving.I do not doubt life can adapt but this is not evolution to me or what evolution has always been about,it has not been about life adapting but one kind of life evolving and changing into another kind of life like dinosaurs evolving into birds,etc I'm not even getting down to molecules I'm just talking about once the life is here it evolves.

Ok, thanks for clarifying, and I apologize for assuming you meant something that you didn't.

And I think this speaks to the confusion on this subject. There's really not an agreement of what evolution means, before the discussions start.

I think for the most part to be fair, when there's disagreement on what a term means, in order to argue against what someone believes, we should take the definition of the one who believes in it. That way we can properly argue against what they actually believe. Just like it wouldn't be fair if someone is discussing Jesus Christ with a believer, and he's arguing against the Jesus of Mormonism. It's just not fair. If you want to argue against what someone believes, why not concede and use their definition? You're certainly not agreeing that what they believe is true.

Id certainly agree there is a lot of confusion about it. Even the simplest and most concepts are dimly grasped
for the most part. A few days ago I exited a conversation with someone here who was insisting that abio is "foundational"
and when asked for a source gave me some apologetics site.

The problem is not confused science, its ignorance on the part of the confused.

Guaranteed a person will end up confused going to pop science or creosites for info.
May as well read tabloids for advice on cancer treatment.

I've seen so much goofy nonsense about evolution already in this thread, some well written, some in
trailer park English, but confused nontheless.
The word "facile" is hardly adequate.

I wonder what gives people the idea that they can hold forth on
a demanding topic they've never studied? Or what makes them think they
have studied

If their hairdresser, auto mechanic, or their kid's coach had done no more study, they'd
rightly come unglued at the resulting mess.

Im no big expert, tho I may be the only one here with a BSc in biology. Id bet a lot more that
I've spent more time around paleontologists, in lab, socially, in the field than everyone else here
multiplied by a hundred. I at least get the basics, have a feel for it. If I knew as much about
football I could hold my own "monday at the water cooler" and not talk about the rink or say pingpong
is foundational to football

"Kurieuo"

Certainly, one shouldn't just go to just one source.
But, to think lay people can't develop an understanding, that's kind of ludicrous.
Or to think the all creasites or no more biased than an evosite, well that too is ludicrous.

People of all positions are scientists and perform science.
For example, take Fazale Rana of the creosite Reasons To Believe.

If you are arguing that we should dismiss everything Fuz says because he's a creo, or part of a creosite, then that's just fallacious and well, ludicrous (my favourite word in this post is seems).

I'm sure Fuz has had far more contact with biology professors and what-not than yourself, and he also has far more education in biochemistry.
But, to disregard everything you say because of your bias, well I'd be committing the genetic fallacy --
I should deal with any substance of your words or argument rather than simply write it off.
If there is no substance, then well, such requires little refutation.

As an aside, I found Fuz's video about himself interesting at: http://www.cbn.com/special/apologetics/ ... -rana.aspx
Certainly not what you'd expect the upbringing of your typical "creo" life to be.

RDK wrote:I have spoken to many atheists about the problems with evolution. They automatically know that I can't be like them, so they give me all kinds of trouble. A creature is designed as a system with all of their inter-related parts working in harmony to support it's life. Necessary parts are just not added one at a time until the animal is complete. Even simple life forms require a complex interplay between all of the working parts for it to sustain " that thing" we call life. It is just like trying to get your engine running with just one of it's needed parts missing. The car will go nowhere and can't "evolve" a new part before the vehicle dies. In other words, no new part CAN evolve since all of the needed ones are already there for life to continue.
The evo' theory gets even crazier when pair bonding began. At what point in the life of a non-sexual creature does the concept of "mate" come into play? Accidentally, a separate similar creature would have had to come along with all of the needed but opposite fully functioning parts that would be compatible with the first. Talk about the impossibility of a happen-chance like that. Just the timing of such an event would be completely unfathomable.
When an evolutionist sees adaptation, he automatically backdates all of this to the beginning of creation, but still cannot follow the logical steps that are required for the process to begin. Adaptation is happening in an animal that has specific "programming" for such changes to occur yet within the compatibility of the reproductive capabilities of the animal. If genetic agreement doesn't happen, there are no chances-no dogs mating with cats- to produce some new animal. Each animal group is unique to it's own and can't crossbreed. We, as humans, can be similar in many ways to apes, but we are still incompatible as mates.
The list of impossibilities would take me hours to mention. I will continue if someone is interested.

Storyteller wrote:I have always accepted ToE to be true simply because it is what I was taught. I'm currently undecided as I believe there us some evidence for it. An example, we cleaned out our pond last spring, refilled it and within a few weeks there was life. I'm talking about bacteria and insects. They seemed to appear from nowhere. Does this prove evoultion? Or just that conditions were right to support life?
I agree that many things can adapt and change, ie bacteria and viruses becoming resistant to antibiotics etc but is this evolution or adaptation?
Audie, if evolution is fact, then where and what did all life evolve from?

Audie wrote:
You dont need to know the origin of the universe etc, to be able to do theory in other fields of science, you dont even need to know the origin of cars to study how cars work.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
You dont need to know the origin of the universe etc, to be able to do theory in other fields of science, you dont even need to know the origin of cars to study how cars work.

But you'd be a complete moron to believe a car came into existence completely on its own without a designer and builder.