Evidence for God from Science

hughfarey wrote:I don't think I would include natural cruelty as an evidence for evolution; it's too anthropomorphic.
But I would add the fossil record, and modern experiments with breeding.

I know it's often touted but I don't see the fossil record as really that strong. Consider the "gaps", this just pushes into punctuated equilibrium. Indeed, the fossil record which is often explosive throughout different periods, seems the suggest that a gradual mechanical process can't be at play.

I know a lot don't see it that way, but there are many scientists who do. I don't care for popular opinion. It's also wrong I think to expect there to be neat "transitions" if evolution is true, and though nested hierarchies are often built upon such, many are probably wrong if we had complete information, access to DNA and what-not. Indeed, if we have the fuller information, I believe it'd look more grass-like and convergences here and there rather than so branch-like.

Modern experiments with breeding, I'm not sure what you mean?? But if you have links do share.

I think the problem of gaps in the fossil record is overstated. To read some sites, one would think that fossils popped up at random here and there, so that any connection between them was largely a matter or guesswork. This is slightly true of terrestrial organisms, and especially big ones, and is hardly surprising given the inherent improbability of any terrestrial animals fossilising at all. But most of the worlds fossils are of marine invertebrates, and here, endless almost perfect sequences of evolutionary change are discovered.

By "breeding", I was choosing a coverall term for the selective breeding of domestic animals and plants (as observed by Darwin), laboratory experiments with bacteria such as Richard Lenski's E. coli experiment, and commercial and experimental crossing of related species and sub-species producing sterile or semi-sterile offspring.

Kurieuo wrote:Audie, your source doesn't say anything much, but you seem to think I care.
If I'm in line with Shakespeare then bite me.

It's simply avoidance from a question you don't wish to answer.

You are officially welcome to write in as clunky and ignorant looking a style as you can
find obscure references to justify.



Another part of your style that leaves much to be desired is your employment of words that
imply much while delivering nothing.

Such as that I want to "avoid" your question. I dont feel like engaging you on this.
It is not at all for the reason or reasons you imply.

Your reference to "touted" and "gaps" is more of the same.

I know it's often touted but I don't see the fossil record as really that strong. Consider the "gaps", this just pushes into punctuated equilibrium. Indeed, the fossil record which is often explosive throughout different periods, seems the suggest that a gradual mechanical process can't be at play.

I know a lot don't see it that way, but there are many scientists who do. I don't care for popular opinion. It's also wrong I think to expect there to be neat "transitions" if evolution is true

Im sure you dont see the fossil record as that strong, in fact, I kind of dont think you much see it as all. It is not the sort of statement that would be made by someone who actually had put in a lot of study.

"Gaps". Abe loves that word too, uses it the same way. I suppose you know there are gaps in the record of your life. Big gaps in the history of WW2, maybe it is not true? Huge gaps in the history of Jesus.

People have not been studying paleontology for very long, it is not well funded. Maybe you'd like to go out and walk about looking at the ground, and see what you can discover that adds to the record. Not so easy.

I've seen the skeleton of an extinct antelope that is known from only that one specimen.
By your kinda figgering, that must have been the only one that ever was.

As for "punctuated e." that one is a big fav. of course, for creos, for the way they can use it to imply more than they can deliver.
I notice you are using the word "gradual" much as you used "gaps". Nothing really explained,
just "gap". Is it the Grand Canyon or a sidewalk crack? "Gradual", like steady snail pace?
"Gradual" as in speed up, slows down, wanders about, takes a long time to get there?

"Cant be at play". Now we have something! It just cant be. So, a true god of the gaps who
comes in and what, bumps the horsie to suddenly reduce its side toes just a little more?

Hmm. I didnt get enough sleep. Feeling sarcastic. But still, what are you even trying to propose?

There are wonderfully complete, very long sequences of small changes to be seen in some plants and animals. I dont know what your alternate idea is, how you'd propose to explain them.

Speaking of propose to explain...

The way it works, is, if ToE is wrong then find some way to disprove it. Abe plays the "oh I am just not convinced" game, and that is what you are doing. Im guessing you could compete for who knows less.

He also thinks he has a better theory.

If you want to see evidence for evolution, there is plenty of research material.
Im not interested in providing it to you.

If you think you have the disproof of ToE, lets hear it.

I think all you are doing is trying, like abe to cram-fit the little scraps of largely misunderstood material you have to hand, into some narrative that allows you to reconcile it with some chosen reading of the bible.

That is boring.

It might even have a tinge of that irony that some like to look out for.

The accusation from creos is that ToE is a wild leap of faith based or totally inadequate and inconsistent evidence.

Then abe brings out "Gap theory" as being better. Talk about a head-pounder.

I dont think you are able to do a bit better.


If you have some specifics about something in mind, that could be worth discussion.

Talking about what you or abe does not find convincing just spreads out a mile wide, and inch deep and smells of, well, never mind.

hughfarey wrote:I think the problem of gaps in the fossil record is overstated. To read some sites, one would think that fossils popped up at random here and there, so that any connection between them was largely a matter or guesswork. This is slightly true of terrestrial organisms, and especially big ones, and is hardly surprising given the inherent improbability of any terrestrial animals fossilising at all. But most of the worlds fossils are of marine invertebrates, and here, endless almost perfect sequences of evolutionary change are discovered.

By "breeding", I was choosing a coverall term for the selective breeding of domestic animals and plants (as observed by Darwin), laboratory experiments with bacteria such as Richard Lenski's E. coli experiment, and commercial and experimental crossing of related species and sub-species producing sterile or semi-sterile offspring.

Well like I told or tried to tell krink, if a person does not understand why there are gaps in the fossil record, let them go forth and see what they can find. Just head out the door and start looking at the ground. Find me a sabre tooth cat bone, or maybe part of a pelycosaur, better still, something nobody has seen before.

The gaps keep getting filled in, but its a slow process. And more important, nobody ever finds anything that is contrary to the theory of, yes, evolution.

(unless you could "Paluxy man tracks" )

Evolution apologetics.

Evolution apologetics.

Audie, way to trample a simple topic.

Kurieuo wrote:Audie, way to trample a simple topic.

Suture self, but it was not a promising way to try to start a thread.

If you wish to comment on conversation-killers,you might check the one from
your partner in creationist-equivocation. Or CE, for short.

I actually offered to try to discuss something reasonable.

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Audie, your source doesn't say anything much, but you seem to think I care.
If I'm in line with Shakespeare then bite me.

It's simply avoidance from a question you don't wish to answer.

You are officially welcome to write in as clunky and ignorant looking a style as you can
find obscure references to justify.



Another part of your style that leaves much to be desired is your employment of words that
imply much while delivering nothing.

Such as that I want to "avoid" your question. I dont feel like engaging you on this.
It is not at all for the reason or reasons you imply.

Your reference to "touted" and "gaps" is more of the same.

I know it's often touted but I don't see the fossil record as really that strong. Consider the "gaps", this just pushes into punctuated equilibrium. Indeed, the fossil record which is often explosive throughout different periods, seems the suggest that a gradual mechanical process can't be at play.

I know a lot don't see it that way, but there are many scientists who do. I don't care for popular opinion. It's also wrong I think to expect there to be neat "transitions" if evolution is true

Im sure you dont see the fossil record as that strong, in fact, I kind of dont think you much see it as all. It is not the sort of statement that would be made by someone who actually had put in a lot of study.

"Gaps". Abe loves that word too, uses it the same way. I suppose you know there are gaps in the record of your life. Big gaps in the history of WW2, maybe it is not true? Huge gaps in the history of Jesus.

People have not been studying paleontology for very long, it is not well funded. Maybe you'd like to go out and walk about looking at the ground, and see what you can discover that adds to the record. Not so easy.

I've seen the skeleton of an extinct antelope that is known from only that one specimen.
By your kinda figgering, that must have been the only one that ever was.

As for "punctuated e." that one is a big fav. of course, for creos, for the way they can use it to imply more than they can deliver.
I notice you are using the word "gradual" much as you used "gaps". Nothing really explained,
just "gap". Is it the Grand Canyon or a sidewalk crack? "Gradual", like steady snail pace?
"Gradual" as in speed up, slows down, wanders about, takes a long time to get there?

"Cant be at play". Now we have something! It just cant be. So, a true god of the gaps who
comes in and what, bumps the horsie to suddenly reduce its side toes just a little more?

Hmm. I didnt get enough sleep. Feeling sarcastic. But still, what are you even trying to propose?

There are wonderfully complete, very long sequences of small changes to be seen in some plants and animals. I dont know what your alternate idea is, how you'd propose to explain them.

Speaking of propose to explain...

The way it works, is, if ToE is wrong then find some way to disprove it. Abe plays the "oh I am just not convinced" game, and that is what you are doing. Im guessing you could compete for who knows less.

He also thinks he has a better theory.

If you want to see evidence for evolution, there is plenty of research material.
Im not interested in providing it to you.

If you think you have the disproof of ToE, lets hear it.

I think all you are doing is trying, like abe to cram-fit the little scraps of largely misunderstood material you have to hand, into some narrative that allows you to reconcile it with some chosen reading of the bible.

That is boring.

It might even have a tinge of that irony that some like to look out for.

The accusation from creos is that ToE is a wild leap of faith based or totally inadequate and inconsistent evidence.

Then abe brings out "Gap theory" as being better. Talk about a head-pounder.

I dont think you are able to do a bit better.


If you have some specifics about something in mind, that could be worth discussion.

Talking about what you or abe does not find convincing just spreads out a mile wide, and inch deep and smells of, well, never mind.

It is clear you are not going to be logical and rational when discussing a simple topic Audie. Perhaps you have no good evidences. That's alright. Just bite your tongue then and politley bow out of any discussion rather than ruining it. Extremely disrespectful to me. Please leave. Thanks.

Is this thread only about evidence for evolution? How about evidence or reasons why those of us who reject evolution,reject it? I reject evolution mainly because there is no credible mechanism for this idea that random DNA copying errors causes life to evolve.This means a person must believe by faith life evolves in order to accept evolution and they have been believing it by faith for about 150 years.This means evolutionary scientists have no credibility based on pushing this evolution myth based on faith evolution happens for all of these years since Darwin.I mean,if they are willing to push this evolution myth for so long based on faith evolution happens without a credible mechanism then we should not and cannot trust much of their other evidence for evolution. They have no credibility.This is my main reason,but I could get into even more reasons why I reject evolution.

A Lie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCl4p6dp6OA

Besides Hugh and myself, this thread seems to have been about anything but top three evidences one sees for Evolution. But, it was sincerely about evidences for not ripping into Evolution.

It is just important I believe, that people actually think about the reasons for why they believe what they believe. I'm really not sure those who believe in Evolution really have any top reasons for why they believe in it. Other than it is part of the reigning paradigm of today's education and so it just makes sense. It's familiar. There's lots of evidence, so much that one is stupid to not believe in Evolution.

So I think to actually discuss what these evidences are carries more substance than trying to prove or disprove Evolution. Yet, evidently some think such is stupid and we should just accept Evolution or knock it.

Kurieou makes an important point, illustrated particularly well by abelcainsbrother's comment just above. Abelcainsbrother wants to look at reasons for rejecting the evidence for evolution, when it is very obvious that he doesn't know what that evidence is. His understanding of the fossil record and the modification and transmission of DNA verges on the wholly uninformed, which is why he finds it easy to reject.

However, there is an implied aspect of Kureiou's comment which I find suspicious. He seems to be suggesting that if one cannot list one's top three reasons for something, then any particular reason might not be particularly strong. This isn't so. If I were asked to convince people of the truth of evolution given only one single field of evidence, I could choose any one of a number of lines - fossils, domestic breeding, DNA similarities, homology, bacterial experiments and so on, and make a convincing case based on any one alone. One of the strengths of evolution is the fact that all these are not only independently strong, but also support each other into a coherent unified argument.

Suspicious? Not at all, it should be very clear that I don't accept Evolution solely results in the diverse life that we have. Any suspicion as to whether I agree with Evolution, my cards are flat down on the table and turned upward that I don't. BUT, that doesn't mean I won't respect or acknowledge evidences that support for and against.

What your suspicions allude to though, is something I do want to drive at with is this: Just because a position is popular, such doesn't mean one shouldn't have reasons to help epistemically justify why they believe what they believe. For it seems clear to me that a whole lot of people accept things without really having their reasons and evidence in place, simply because it is the popular opinion taught to them, or it's easier to go with the current.

Many Christians who deferred to the Roman Catholic Church is the past were guilty of this, I mean Christianity was quite a popular belief system here and there since Rome set it up in the 4th century. And Christianity has suffered much due to Christians neglecting to respect advice of Scripture to have reasons for why we believe what we do. (1 Peter 3:15)

Nonetheless, raising suspicion perhaps is correct nonetheless to raise. It is no doubt why Audie reacted like she did and chose not to even dignify my questions. She thinks I've got an agenda or the like. I'd like to think, at least my conscious mind thinks, my agenda here is to just encourage discussion on the actual facts of the matter rather than simply declaring evolution to be completely true or completely false as often arises in such discussions or debates.

I personally think it more fair (in a justified epistemic sense) given what we know to conclude "evolution" happened here, while special creation likley there, and yet remain undecided in a great many instances for which we lack knowledge. Rather than taking such a totalitarian approach to it being purely one way, or purely the other way. So what examples you might ask would point to a special creation event in a specific instance?

Ok, let's take convergent "evolution". What is seen according the those who accept the reigning paradigm as organisms, organs or like having evolved two, three or more times I see such as more suggestive of some someone creating.

Or take symbiotic relationships where an organism can't survive without the other (chicken and egg type scenarios, only very complex mandatory M:N relationships). Such to me is suggestive of a designer who created the system and organisms to co-exist in their relationship dependencies all at once. You know we even have symbiotic relationships with mother and offspring, between sexes and the like which seem to me just accepted as bare facts.

Now as I'd see matters, to be an Evolution purist, or a special Creation purist, in a fully epistemically justified sense which no skepticism can thwart, then we need to through every individual species and make a determination as to whether the evidence suggests such evolved or such seems the product of some special design, or there's just not enough evidence either way. It could even be a mix of both perhaps, evolution and tinkering, why not?

Such is better I think then just throwing a broad blanket over the top and saying everything evolved, or vice-versa everything was specially created. Such opinions and conclusions really ultimately derive from one's philosophy or the philosophy that they've been saturated with during their education, within their family or society.

Sadly, the problem with doing this (making an informed judgement in every case) is that we just do not have complete knowledge over all the facts necessary to draw solid conclusions in every case. Most of the evidence for simple singular cellular life evolving into the diverse and complex life that we see is circumstantial. Adaptations in bacteria used as cross-evidence for simple cellular life evolving into more complex life, or even from one complex life form to the next, is nonetheless very relative evidence and too circumstantial-like. But then, there are many other evidences that could be brought to bear in support too.

Let's turn to your first line of evidence being the fossil evidence that you believe is so strong. Now you've stated it, such can be discussed alone in its own right, and really as I previously stated I consider such overplayed. Many acknowledge problems with the known fossil record and give certain justifications. A known gap (not simply undiscovered fossils) were why Eldredge and Gould first proposed Punctuated equilibria, I'd recommend reading their paper, Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism.

Now this challenged the orthodox model of Evolutionary thought that the speed was always constant and thus would appear gradual. To quote that Wikipedia source on Punctuated equilibrium:

The sudden appearance of most species in the geologic record and the lack of evidence of substantial gradual change in most species—from their initial appearance until their extinction—has long been noted, including by Charles Darwin who appealed to the imperfection of the record as the favored explanation. When presenting his ideas against the prevailing influences of catastrophism and progressive creationism, which envisaged species being supernaturally created at intervals, Darwin needed to forcefully stress the gradual nature of evolution in accordance with the gradualism promoted by his friend Charles Lyell. He privately expressed concern, noting in the margin of his 1844 Essay, "Better begin with this: If species really, after catastrophes, created in showers world over, my theory false."

The thing is the science tells us that the fossil record isn't always pretty, many species arrive onto the scene in the fossil record in an explosive manner. It's not just me saying this or some literal creation fundamentalist as you might suspect. The rejoinder back is generally that there isn't any reason to assume that the rate of change and speed with which evolution happens is constant.

HOWEVER, when one does this, then it opens the door also to creation as an alternative, especially when one can't explain is an orderly manner how the "spontaneous" changes evolved. You know, it kind of brings what those maligned IDists like Michael Behe termed Irreducible Complexity (who believed in Evolution mind you) to the forefront of my mind.

So then, if one is saying Evolution is necessarily gradual such that all species will have intermediaries that came into existence wherein we see gradual constant changes from species A to E (with B, C and D in between), well such is just not supported at all by the fossil record. One's view of Evolution, in order to be sustained, must be of a higher level of sophistication. And indeed, there are many various proposals that try to harmonise such within a neo-Darwinian synthesis.

As you all know I believe that evolution DOES take place and is "responsible" for life on this planet being at the stages that it is.
I don't think that God is NOT involved since as the sustainer of ALL and the First Cause/Prime mover of all there could be no evolution without God.

I don't think that God needs to intervene DIRECTLY ALL the time BUT I also don't think that evolution via natural selection address all that we see and observe.

Even if tomorrow, science would find indisputable fact that evolution is 100% guided and random, without even the need for natural selection, it still would not eliminate God ( as Christians know God to be) from the equation.

Personally I don't like the term 'evolution' -- would rather use the term 'developed' -- That which I Don't accept is the Macro-part -- the millions/ billions concept. Cause it can't be proved. And I know there are those who depend Heavily on fossils to substantiate the macro. And someone said it takes More faith to accept evolution than it does the Genesis creation. That which we can observe happening is worth time to discuss. The Fact is that this world Is here as are the various forms of animal life and that We are here. And, naturally we'd like answers as to the how's and why's.
And I SO agree that just because a theory/ concept is Popular doesn't make it Right.
But there are parts that So show a Designer -- the DNA code -- and the complexity of the cell -- and the various systems of the human body and how they fit together / work together. And the brain -- part of the body -- That is complex. And, yes, Complex Does say 'Designer'. For Me, 'random' simply doesn't fit into this.