Evidence for God from Science

I laugh at your idea that the sun's energy hitting the earth means that the 2nd law doesn't apply. The sun is detrimental to 99.9% of the things on this earth. It will change the color of paint, it'll bake your bricks to a powder, it will give you sunburn, it will wither plants....their are only two things that channel the sun's energy energy into something useful, out of every single thing upon this planet-one is chlorohpyl in plants, and the other is whatever exists in the human body that makes one (just one) vitamin using the sun in a way I don't know (but, stay out too long, and you won't get more vitamins-you'll just bake yourself and the sun's radiation will destroy the upper layers of skin...

Just because the sun's rays are harmful does not mean that we do not need the sun to survive. The sun plays a pivotal role in our survival and indeed it was the UV rays from the sun that sparked the amino acids and the chemical equations that occur to create life.

The sun in itself is somewhat of a paradox. It splitted the Oxygen molecules that were required to be splitted so they could bond with other oxygen molecules to form our Ozone layer which pretty much provides protection against the dangers of the sun.

so in a way the Sun is a required energy source, because it protects us from itself.

From this you can see that we dont only need the sun to provide us with heat but for a variety of other things that are required for life.

If you take a wad of clay and stick it in an oven, it won't turn into a sculpture on it's own. According to evolution, it will.

No offense but that is a stupid generalization of the Evolution argument, and I honestly question the source of this information. It's not like putting mud into an oven at all, rather it would be like putting a bunch of chemicals in an oven that react differently to heat (eg. Oxygen Molecules split when hit by heat), I'm not sure of all the chemical equations that occured on Earth that began human life but I'm sure that the sun's UV rays is one of the necessary radiations to occur it.

Things do not get more complex without intelligent force acting upon them.

Sorry but it's been proven that bacteria HAS gotten more complex due to enivornmental factors that result in greater genetic diversity, so you are wrong.

Darwin_Rocks wrote:The sun plays a pivotal role in our survival and indeed it was the UV rays from the sun that sparked the amino acids and the chemical equations that occur to create life.

Yes, you are correct that the sun plays a pivotal role in the survival of life. You said create life, not evolve life. Can you PROVE to me that "the UV rays from the sun that sparked the amino acids and the chemical equations that occur to create life" happened? As far as I'm concerned, science only provides a THEORY on this and still has been a theory, not a fact. I already know that theories can be twisted to look like facts.

Without matter ...nothing can be created. Who can create life if he can't even create matter?

Just because the sun's rays are harmful does not mean that we do not need the sun to survive.

Don't twist my words-I said using the sun as an excuse around the 2nd law of thermodynamics is laughable.

Quote:
If you take a wad of clay and stick it in an oven, it won't turn into a sculpture on it's own. According to evolution, it will.

No offense but that is a stupid generalization of the Evolution argument, and I honestly question the source of this information. It's not like putting mud into an oven at all, rather it would be like putting a bunch of chemicals in an oven that react differently to heat (eg. Oxygen Molecules split when hit by heat), I'm not sure of all the chemical equations that occured on Earth that began human life but I'm sure that the sun's UV rays is one of the necessary radiations to occur it.

It gets the point across. Sticking the building blocks of a sculpture together and getting it near an energy source doesn't create order or a sculpture, in the same way getting chemicals together that are found in cells and sending electrical charges or radiation through them won't create order and complex life AND information...the sculpture scenario doesn't work there.

but I'm sure that the sun's UV rays is one of the necessary radiations to occur it.

Radiation destroys life....radiation without the ozone would destroy life in a heartbeat. But, early earth's atmosphere would have to be devoid of oxygen, since it would oxidize with and render amino acids useless (but don't worry, they wouldn't have turned into complex proteins anyway). The only reason (very amusing) that the early earth is believed to have no oxygen IS evolution....and then, this belief then goes to support evolution...which presents a humorous situation...a building built upon itself.....There is actually evidence, though, for the existence of oxygen in high quantities....geology is one of the areas that support this....many materials are found oxidized throughout the earth's crust is what I think they say. Can't even tell if I'm off topic.

And a little extra blirp on information. Information requires a mental source...

Sorry but it's been proven that bacteria HAS gotten more complex due to enivornmental factors that result in greater genetic diversity, so you are wrong.

That doesn't seem logical, so explain how bacteria has gotten more complex....and how there is greater genetic diversity...sounds odd...but still not evidence for evolution

Sorry but it's been proven that bacteria HAS gotten more complex due to enivornmental factors that result in greater genetic diversity, so you are wrong.

But it is all still bacteria, so what is the point? There is no proof of bacteria becoming anything more than bacteria. Also, can you define a bit better what exactly you mean by "more complex"?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:That is by far the worst argument I have heard in all my days on this earth.....

What about Mutation? From my understanding Mutation occurs when an Enzyme is not copied correctly from DNA resulting in an enzyme that has different functions to it's predecessors which could result in the changing chemcial reactions of a creature and hence evolution.

If an enyzme is mutated, it won't work, which means the cell will die.

That is patently false. Observe the enymatic protein cytochrome C. This is present int he mitochondrion of all metazoa. Yet it differs in amino acid sequence by nearly 50% in distantly related taxa. That is, the gene encoding the protein can be mutated such that it will produce 'mutated' proteins that differ by as much as 50%. In addition, 'mutated' enzymes do not always spell death for a cell.

Geeks who enjoy complicated things are discovering how complex the processes in a cell is.

And how many of these 'geeks' are utilizing Intelligent Design/Creation science tenets? How many of these 'geeks' are creationists? Complexity does not dictate design.

Now, Darwin, if I were to give you a clock-a really nice clock, with all the little cogs and wheels, not the cheap ones from China-and it's running, of course-change the setup of the parts in there, so it works in a different way, remembering this one rule-it must work at every step of the way, so as you remove one cog, the entire clock must still be running....

What is the 'rule' thatit must work as a clock at every step of the way? Your analogy is misleading and deceptive. It is a strawman argument.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote: And there is no such thing as a beneficial mutation (as far as I know) in an enyzme-if the enyzme changes, it won't function-a mutation won't make it work better or worse....it'll just make it stop working....

Another baseless claim.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html#Q2

Actually, a British evolutionist was asked for an example of a beneficial mutation...and he couldn't find one...(it might have been just mutations that added genetic information...but, wait, the DNA would have to be goofed up for the wrong enzyme to be made from it...)

Actually, the British evolutionist got mad when he was asked about that because he realized that the questioner had lied to him about her intentions.

And the thing on the Brit was from Tornado in a Junkyard-I actually remembered my source.

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/brownresponse.htm

Okay, guys look, this is NEVER going to be solved, probably NEVER. Why don't all the paganists/atheists/agnostics/non-believers get a Bible and read it. It is all written so plainly on the pages of the Bible. The Bible is NOT a science book! God left it up to us to discover the science. Pope John Paul II said that evolution and creation shouldn't conflict with each other but agree with each other. Highly intelligent man of God. Can we assume that God just did it? More and more evidence is pointing to a creator and the theories of evolution are just plainly contradicting each other and new theories need to be made up. So what if God used evolution, why is that a big deal? Even IF evolution is proved to be true, someone or something had to spark it. Matter cannot come from nothing. My computer I type with doesn't just pop out of thin air, it must be CREATED in order to work, sure computers evolve into faster machines, but there still is a creator behind it to make that happen. Why cant we apply this to God - evolution under creations guidence. It makes sense to me. The more important question is what if there is a God and all the paganists/atheists/agnostics/non-believers once they die DO experience the presense of God and then are thrown into the lake of fire (hell) for not believing, then what? Why wont you just read your Bible - if you have one - and just learn from it instead of just rejecting it and follow into what science tells us. You have to prod it from two point of of views. The Bible states CLEARLY that you can believe or not believe, now it isn't forcing religion down someones throat at all. It is giving you an option, it's a choice. So why then does it give an option? Simply because you can take it or leave it. What other world's best selling book close to the Bible gives you an option to believe or not believe? None that I'm aware of.

HelpMeGod wrote:Okay, guys look, this is NEVER going to be solved, probably NEVER. Why don't all the paganists/atheists/agnostics/non-believers get a Bible and read it. It is all written so plainly on the pages of the Bible.

I have. Cover to cover. Twice. After the second reading, I became an agnostic.

The Bible is NOT a science book! God left it up to us to discover the science. Pope John Paul II said that evolution and creation shouldn't conflict with each other but agree with each other.

Good middle ground position.

Highly intelligent man of God. Can we assume that God just did it?

Why should we?

More and more evidence is pointing to a creator and the theories of evolution are just plainly contradicting each other and new theories need to be made up.

Tell me about this evidence. I have never heard any.

The more important question is what if there is a God and all the paganists/atheists/agnostics/non-believers once they die DO experience the presense of God and then are thrown into the lake of fire (hell) for not believing, then what?

I find it reprehensible that any God would so punish its own creation.

Why wont you just read your Bible - if you have one - and just learn from it instead of just rejecting it and follow into what science tells us.

Again, I have read it. As you said, it is not a science book, so how can one learn about science by reading the bible?

You have to prod it from two point of of views. The Bible states CLEARLY that you can believe or not believe, now it isn't forcing religion down someones throat at all. It is giving you an option, it's a choice. So why then does it give an option? Simply because you can take it or leave it. What other world's best selling book close to the Bible gives you an option to believe or not believe? None that I'm aware of.

So you have a choice, but if you make the non-preferred choice, you burn in Hell.

Some 'choice'.

SLP wrote:

HelpMeGod wrote:Okay, guys look, this is NEVER going to be solved, probably NEVER. Why don't all the paganists/atheists/agnostics/non-believers get a Bible and read it. It is all written so plainly on the pages of the Bible.

I have. Cover to cover. Twice. After the second reading, I became an agnostic.

The Bible is NOT a science book! God left it up to us to discover the science. Pope John Paul II said that evolution and creation shouldn't conflict with each other but agree with each other.

Good middle ground position.

Highly intelligent man of God. Can we assume that God just did it?

Why should we?

More and more evidence is pointing to a creator and the theories of evolution are just plainly contradicting each other and new theories need to be made up.

Tell me about this evidence. I have never heard any.

The more important question is what if there is a God and all the paganists/atheists/agnostics/non-believers once they die DO experience the presense of God and then are thrown into the lake of fire (hell) for not believing, then what?

I find it reprehensible that any God would so punish its own creation.

Why wont you just read your Bible - if you have one - and just learn from it instead of just rejecting it and follow into what science tells us.

Again, I have read it. As you said, it is not a science book, so how can one learn about science by reading the bible?

You have to prod it from two point of of views. The Bible states CLEARLY that you can believe or not believe, now it isn't forcing religion down someones throat at all. It is giving you an option, it's a choice. So why then does it give an option? Simply because you can take it or leave it. What other world's best selling book close to the Bible gives you an option to believe or not believe? None that I'm aware of.

So you have a choice, but if you make the non-preferred choice, you burn in Hell.

Some 'choice'.

I have. Cover to cover. Twice. After the second reading, I became an agnostic.

How come? WHAT in the Bible CAUSED you to become agnostic? Being agnostic, you CAN'T know if there is a God. If you were atheist you wouldn't even believe in the possible existence of God.

Why should we?

Because do you know EVERYTHING that EVERYONE is doing, do you believe that there is a higer being than us?

Tell me about this evidence. I have never heard any.

Because you don't research enough.

I find it reprehensible that any God would so punish its own creation.

The reason, SIR, is because if you reject God and don't do his will, then why should He allow you to be with him? He does love each and every one of us, but that doesn't mean we all get to go to heaven. We go because we have faith and not lean on our own understanding of things. It is learning to accept something that cannot be seen, as mentioned in the Bible.

Again, I have read it. As you said, it is not a science book, so how can one learn about science by reading the bible?

We have intelligence, God gave it to us, we use our intelligence for science and other matter. If you had an open mind while reading the Bible, you would find that there is science in it. It shows things we didn't know until 100 years ago.

Some 'choice'.

Yeah, and if there is a God, which I firmly believe there is, you will spend your "lovely" life in hell for your unbelief. Seriously, do you even try to look at things from a Christian perspective or just exclusively atheistic perspectives before posting something?

Try reading EVERY single article on this website, and MAYBE you will have a better understanding. What was your point coming to these forums anyways, to convert believers into non-believers? It isn't going to work.

HelpMeGod wrote:

SLP wrote:
I have. Cover to cover. Twice. After the second reading, I became an agnostic.

How come? WHAT in the Bible CAUSED you to become agnostic? Being agnostic, you CAN'T know if there is a God. If you were atheist you wouldn't even believe in the possible existence of God.

Wrong on both counts.
Being an agnostic means that one does not know or believe whether or not there is a God or gods. Being an atheist means that one does not believe that there is a God ro gods.

Why should we?

Because do you know EVERYTHING that EVERYONE is doing, do you believe that there is a higer being than us?

It depends on what you mean by higher.

Tell me about this evidence. I have never heard any.

Because you don't research enough.

Actualy, I have been following the 'debate' for over 10 years. I own and/or have read probably a dozen creationist books. I have read or own a half dozen creationist 'scientific' journals. I peruse on a near daily basis 3-5 creationist websites and dsisucsion boards.
I also did 5 years of graduate research in an area directly related to evolution and continue to do so on a 'when I have time' basis.

So, again, what evidence did you have in mind?

I find it reprehensible that any God would so punish its own creation.

The reason, SIR, is because if you reject God and don't do his will, then why should He allow you to be with him?

I don't care about the reason, SIR, I still find such behaviour grotesque.

He does love each and every one of us, but that doesn't mean we all get to go to heaven.

No, some of us get an eternity of suffering and torment. How pleasant.

We go because we have faith and not lean on our own understanding of things.

Better to be told what to think...

Again, I have read it. As you said, it is not a science book, so how can one learn about science by reading the bible?

We have intelligence, God gave it to us, we use our intelligence for science and other matter. If you had an open mind while reading the Bible, you would find that there is science in it. It shows things we didn't know until 100 years ago.

So let me see - I have nopt done enough research, I have a closed mind - what's next?

But thrill me - tell me what science the bible contains that we did not know until 100 years ago.

Some 'choice'.

Yeah, and if there is a God, which I firmly believe there is, you will spend your "lovely" life in hell for your unbelief.

Thanks for your Christian compassion.

Seriously, do you even try to look at things from a Christian perspective or just exclusively atheistic perspectives before posting something?

Seriously, do you even try to look at things from a non-Christian perspective or just exclusively fundamentalist perspectives before posting something?

I was a Christian for the first 20 years of my life. I've been there.
Look, I sense your hostility, and I did not mean to provoke such negativity. But I find it insulting that folks like you present yourselves as having all the answers when you do not.

Try reading EVERY single article on this website, and MAYBE you will have a better understanding.

Have you READ EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE?

What was your point coming to these forums anyways, to convert believers into non-believers? It isn't going to work.

Just to chat. I wouldn't dream of converting anyone. But I disdain having my position vilified and distorted by those that clearly do not understand it.

Okay, SLP, if you are just here to "chat", what point are you trying to make across to everyone? If you would research the Bible inside and out, you would find some scientific explanations for things that exist on the Earth - http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... bible.html . Yes, I have read MANY of the articles on this website, and although I am not by far the greatest person to argue with because I lack those skills, I still can take in information and process it. I take it that you are here because you are still questioning yourself? Why do you persist in living a life like you do as an agnostic? It is God that will bring you to him, not people. He knocks at the "door" of every living soul, but it is our decision to accept or not accept. I take it you want to be an agnostic for the rest of your life? What will you do if you find out God does exist and then you don't have anything in favor for you to save you from hell? God punishes because of the unbelief in Him. If I were God and I loved all my creations, good or bad, and that creation disobeyed me, didn't seek me, didn't want my help, completely refused, and denied my existence, do you think I would want someone like that in my kingdom? NO! So it all comes down to what you ulimately want to believe in.

To answer this question:

HelpMeGod wrote:

I have. Cover to cover. Twice. After the second reading, I became an agnostic.

How come? WHAT in the Bible CAUSED you to become agnostic?

I found the stories too fantastic to accept, especially in the context of the time they were written. It seemed much more plausible to me that the 'miracles' were simply a pretechnological peoples' way of describing events that they did not understand or could not explain.

HelpMeGod wrote:Okay, SLP, if you are just here to "chat", what point are you trying to make across to everyone?

Just what I said - that one should not distort and misrepresent one's perceived opposition to justify one's beliefs. I read through a few threads and found the amount of misrepresentation of evolution, atheism, etc. simply staggering.

If you would research the Bible inside and out, you would find some scientific explanations for things that exist on the Earth - http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... bible.html .

Please...

I am familiar with Mr.Deem's science - I encountered him years ago and had to inform him of a major error in one of his articles (which he would not correct).

That list of things is so ambiguous that to claim them as scientific knowledge is at best fantasy.
Observations, such as ""Can you bind the beautiful Pleiades? Can you loose the cords of Orion?" (Job 38:31)" being given as evidence of the 'accurate scientific knowledge of' "Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally bound star groups", for example, is at best unwarranted extrapolation.

I am not convinced by such things.


How much 'research' on evolution have you done? I mean besides reading essays on sites like this?

Yes, I have read MANY of the articles on this website, and although I am not by far the greatest person to argue with because I lack those skills, I still can take in information and process it.

So how do you know that what is in those articles is correct? Accurate? That his interpretations have merit?

I take it that you are here because you are still questioning yourself?

Actually, I followed a link from another site.

Why do you persist in living a life like you do as an agnostic?

Because I find it fulfilling as it is. I have a wonderful family and career. I see no need to add a layer of confusion and indoctrination where none is needed.

It is God that will bring you to him, not people. He knocks at the "door" of every living soul, but it is our decision to accept or not accept.

Well, no knocks on my door.

I take it you want to be an agnostic for the rest of your life?

It is not a want, it is an acceptance. Actually, I am an atheist. I became an agnostic after reading the bible, and an atheist after a few years of reflection.

What will you do if you find out God does exist and then you don't have anything in favor for you to save you from hell? God punishes because of the unbelief in Him.

So, I should believe out of fear?

If I were God and I loved all my creations, good or bad, and that creation disobeyed me, didn't seek me, didn't want my help, completely refused, and denied my existence, do you think I would want someone like that in my kingdom? NO! So it all comes down to what you ulimately want to believe in.

True. I ultimately do not want to believe that a superbeing capable of creating the universe would be so petty so as to punish Its own creations for so meager a reason.