Evidence for God from Science

bippy123 wrote:

Audie wrote:

bippy123 wrote:
Every normal, high iq intellectual knows from our experience as human beings knows that specified complex information can never come about from anything other the. Blind undirected natural forces .

and to that I say ""BRING on that magic show !!!!!!""

Could you provide us with precise scientific definitions of these words, and explain what they mean in the phrase? Best if you dont refer to anything but your own understanding.

Considering how much of what has been learned about physics and other areas of research is very counter intuitive, and very difficult to understand even with a
deep background in higher math, its not reasonable to say that normal human experience will tell everyone how to spot what is impossible.

Well I do not prescribe to the many worlds interpretation as I see idealism as being able to explain reality in a much simpler way , but that's another topic

But to simplify study, I make the provisional assumption that atoms obey simple physical laws. This practical approach also saves me from having to take courses on angel psychology.

Philip wrote:

But to simplify study, I make the provisional assumption that atoms obey simple physical laws. This practical approach also saves me from having to take courses on angel psychology.

And, so, where did those laws come from?!!! Complex laws that were in play at the very beginning of the Big Bang event. Laws of great complexity and specificity, mandates of how things MUST function and react, do NOT create THEMSELVES by THEMSELVES! So, this makes arguing evolution a mere sideshow attraction. You've got time, matter, space, dimensions all coming into existence where there was nothing, and THEN you've got complex laws that guided what suddenly came into existence. This is similar, if not as spectacular, of what happened after the universe began to cool, and conditions on earth became conducive to sustaining simple life.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

According to evolution, not only did non-life on the early earth somehow come alive, but organisms' basic components, "simple" cells, of great and irreducible complexity, came into existence. EVERYTHING in such cells, at their most basic components, HAD to be in place all at once - otherwise, the cell would not function as a cell. Thus, a cell could not have evolved! It can't function until ALL of its components are all in place and are fully functioning. And such cells are MASSIVELY complex. A simple cell contains power stations producing the energy to be used by the cell, factories manufacturing the enzymes and hormones essential for life, a databank where all the necessary information about all products to be produced is recorded, complex transportation systems and pipelines for carrying raw materials and products from one place to another, advanced laboratories and refineries for breaking down external raw materials into their useable parts, and specialized cell membrane proteins to control the incoming and outgoing materials. And these constitute only a small part of this incredibly complex system. So how did something irreducibly complex, that could not evolve, come from? Where did its incredible design and function come from. Random, chance and nothingness?!!!

A cell is FAR more complex than ANY machine or computer man has ever built. And yet we're to believe it built itself through unguided, random processes, and dumb luck?

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sh ... php/id/840

Audie wrote:

Philip wrote:

But to simplify study, I make the provisional assumption that atoms obey simple physical laws. This practical approach also saves me from having to take courses on angel psychology.

And, so, where did those laws come from?!!! Complex laws that were in play at the very beginning of the Big Bang event. Laws of great complexity and specificity, mandates of how things MUST function and react, do NOT create THEMSELVES by THEMSELVES! So, this makes arguing evolution a mere sideshow attraction. You've got time, matter, space, dimensions all coming into existence where there was nothing, and THEN you've got complex laws that guided what suddenly came into existence. This is similar, if not as spectacular, of what happened after the universe began to cool, and conditions on earth became conducive to sustaining simple life.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

According to evolution, not only did non-life on the early earth somehow come alive, but organisms' basic components, "simple" cells, of great and irreducible complexity, came into existence. EVERYTHING in such cells, at their most basic components, HAD to be in place all at once - otherwise, the cell would not function as a cell. Thus, a cell could not have evolved! It can't function until ALL of its components are all in place and are fully functioning. And such cells are MASSIVELY complex. A simple cell contains power stations producing the energy to be used by the cell, factories manufacturing the enzymes and hormones essential for life, a databank where all the necessary information about all products to be produced is recorded, complex transportation systems and pipelines for carrying raw materials and products from one place to another, advanced laboratories and refineries for breaking down external raw materials into their useable parts, and specialized cell membrane proteins to control the incoming and outgoing materials. And these constitute only a small part of this incredibly complex system. So how did something irreducibly complex, that could not evolve, come from? Where did its incredible design and function come from. Random, chance and nothingness?!!!

A cell is FAR more complex than ANY machine or computer man has ever built. And yet we're to believe it built itself through unguided, random processes, and dumb luck?

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sh ... php/id/840

The part in bold is not factually correct.

This kind of thing is fed out to the public by the anti intellectual creationist sites
to which previous mention was made. ToE may be right and it may be wrong, but it will never be disproved by anything that is not true or relevant.

1) ToE in no way incorporates to addresses the origin of life.

-this is so because a theory cannot deal with that for which there is no data

-no definition or description of ToE includes the origin of life

-ToE is precisely the same regardless of how life stated, for the simple reason that ToE
deals with changes in life over the aeons. Its no more about the origin of the universe than aerodynamics is.

2) The cell as the basic unit, the starting pint of life in abiogenesis:

-this is nowhere postulated as being the case, other than from creationist sites

-there is no known bright line distinction between "life" and "non life"

-a self-replicating organic molecule is far less complex than a cell. Is it alive? Is it a start on life?

-there is no known flawless definition of life. The choice to define virus, viroids and prions as non living is somewhat arbitrary. Those things exist on the fuzzy boundary between life and non life.

bippy123 wrote:

Audie wrote:

Philip wrote:

The part in bold is not factually correct.

This kind of thing is fed out to the public by the anti intellectual creationist sites
to which previous mention was made. ToE may be right and it may be wrong, but it will never be disproved by anything that is not true or relevant.

1) ToE in no way incorporates to addresses the origin of life.

-this is so because a theory cannot deal with that for which there is no data

-no definition or description of ToE includes the origin of life

-ToE is precisely the same regardless of how life stated, for the simple reason that ToE
deals with changes in life over the aeons. Its no more about the origin of the universe than aerodynamics is.

2) The cell as the basic unit, the starting pint of life in abiogenesis:

-this is nowhere postulated as being the case, other than from creationist sites

-there is no known bright line distinction between "life" and "non life"

-a self-replicating organic molecule is far less complex than a cell. Is it alive? Is it a start on life?

-there is no known flawless definition of life. The choice to define virus, viroids and prions as non living is somewhat arbitrary. Those things exist on the fuzzy boundary between life and non life.

Audie the problem with the toe is als how the data is interpreted . Now granted the theory of evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life but everyone and their grandmother knows that most evolutionists believe in their hearts that life came about somehow from non life or a naturalistic process. They have a heavy bias in this area and it also indirectly effects how they approach other evidences in the theory of evolution .

There was first that the problems you raised were simply factually incorrect. Are you acknowledging that?

As for how the data is interpreted, SEDI (same evidence, different interpretation) is a hollow complaint, unless something specific and significant is brought forth. Its not enough just to "interpret". You know?

Yous statement about "most evolutionists" can be demonstrated to be false just by the small number of atheists to be found in the population. The thing about bias is just an assertion, esp the segue from thinking abio is probable going on to colour everything.

You do know that a foremost value in science is objectivity? I know, I know, its an impossible ideal, but people try, much harder than you may realize.

Do you feel Christianity makes the same call? To me it appears the opposite; hold fast the faith, and all. Believe.

Regardless, you have simply made an assertion to the effect that scientists world wide are doing bad work, or (implied" they'd not think ToE was valid.

You can almost see this in doctors Meyers video . Instead of admitting that what he rightly said in the video poses a formidable challenge to evolution , most evolutionists will ignore this data or give an answer that isn't scientific at all.

do you almost see your assertions, and the use of the word "admit", as in "reluctantly confess"? And "formidable"? "Ignore"?

They are not unbiased . Science is supposed to come out of an enquiring mind that is just inter tested in the truth . This isn't the case at all with most evolutionary biologists.

You are again just asserting things you cant possibly know. See who is biased here?
Science, btw, does not do "truth".

Granted there are creationists that are the opposite side if the same coin, that doesn't take away from the responsibility of these pro evolutionary biologists to deal with these problems instead of sweeping them under the rug or firing any biologist or scientist that doesn't agree with them .

Honestly, the bit about rug sweepiong and firing, honestly?

This is how real science is done and this was why my faith in evolution started crumbling slowly and eventually I left it a few years back.

Considering the major errors you made in a few lines, do you think you really have a well informed opinion?

Evolutionists know the astronomical odds for life arising out of chemical interaction and blind chance , and this is why the smarter ones tend to stay away from this side of it .

Id like to discuss facts / data, lets not do how you choose to think others who you do not know are behaving, or comment on their intelligence and character.

But since you brought up the bit about odds, nobody is in a very good position to say what those odds are for life self starting.

However, if you've some chemistry..did you take organic?.. you know that reactions tend to take place at tremendous speed. The number of atoms / molecules / ion in a single drop of water is fantastically huge.

Now, given that complex organic molecules do self assemble under quite a variety of conditions, and given that there are 330,000,000 cubic miles of water on earth, and there were some few millions years to work with, any combination that CAN happen is pretty much going to. Odds are.

I dont see the probability thing working as an asrgument for special creation, unless, of course, one thinks that life has to start with a cell.

Most of my relatives are evolutionists (which is common amongst my fellow catholics ), but when I ask them why they believe in it , their response is "that's what we were taught in school and that's what biologists say" which is no good at all to a non comformist like me, while on the other hand I can explain my position perfectly to them and don't need to speak to authority to make my argument

Distrust "authorities", good. Me too. Do you have any "authority" that you do trust implicitly?

At the same time, if 99 percent or so of scientist around the world are satisfied that ToE is a good theory, that might well mean something. Considering, after all, how delighted any physicist, say, would be if he made the discovery that ToE is fatally flawed. Only the status of making the greatest scientific discovery in how many years, maybe ever?


Most people know little science, couldnt perhaps even tell you how it was determined that the world is round, like an orange. Their failings are not the failings of science, nor disproof of any theory.

As for explaining your position, you've indicated that you think "evolutionists" are biased, linked to a presumed authority (?), and listed some problems for ToE that are factually incorrect.

Now, you may be right, ID may be "it", who knows. Its always good to follow any evidence trail.

What was it may you decide that there is some fatal flaw with ToE?





.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Why don't people actually look at the evidence for life evolving instead of just believing 99% of scientists,I'm talking about investigating and looking to see if the evidence backs up the evolution rhetoric?I did this and anybody that can read can too.Look up the scientific definitions for evolution,micro evolution,macro evolution,natural selection then actually look for evidence to back up these definitions,it takes time and you'll find a lot of so-called evidence to wade through but if you actually make it your goal to know the truth by evidence,you will realize on your own that evolution is nowhere near truthful science,you can even ignore creationist sights that tell you this,even if you disagree with their creation theory,you'll still know evolution is not truthful science and those who have accepted it,do so because the scientific rhetoric that evolution is true science.
This song comes to mind when I think about evolutionists.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ISLKYUx7xpc

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Why don't people actually look at the evidence for life evolving instead of just believing 99% of scientists,I'm talking about investigating and looking to see if the evidence backs up the evolution rhetoric?I did this and anybody that can read can too.Look up the scientific definitions for evolution,micro evolution,macro evolution,natural selection then actually look for evidence to back up these definitions,it takes time and you'll find a lot of so-called evidence to wade through but if you actually make it your goal to know the truth by evidence,you will realize on your own that evolution is nowhere near truthful science,you can even ignore creationist sights that tell you this,even if you disagree with their creation theory,you'll still know evolution is not truthful science and those who have accepted it,do so because the scientific rhetoric that evolution is true science.
This song comes to mind when I think about evolutionists.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ISLKYUx7xpc

Evolution is a historical science and the theory is subject to change based on new evidence, the theory is an interpretation of historical evidence, like fossils, DNA, geology etc... etc... The problem is ACB that even if it is wrong, it is still the best theory we currently have that fits the evidence, no, I repeat no creation theory fits the evidence at all without massive problems with the evidence, so all we are left with is evolution and until a better theory comes along that fits the evidence better or new evidence is uncovered that changes the theory of evolution we have to go with it. Yes there are problems with evolution, no doubt about that, but it has far less problems than any other competing theory or creation perspective. I have looked at the evidence for evolution and it is very strong, I have read the creation evidence and they have nowhere near the explanatory power that actually fits the evidence that evolution has, not many people just believe 99% of scientists, most people have looked at the evidence for themselves, there is so much information out there that you can't help being educated on evolution. If you want to believe in Gap theory, that's cool bro, I have no issue with it, but it has nowhere near the explanatory power and it has major flaws, biblical and scientific, more so than other creation theories.

Storyteller wrote:Quick q?

Evolution... has it's problems, doesn't have to be a problem to faith.

Creationism... who was Adam then? A stone age man, a neandethal?

I'm nor 100 per cent evolution nor creationism.

Don't know enough but to me it's a minor detail.
(sorry for intruding, I am learning al this anew)

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Why don't people actually look at the evidence for life evolving instead of just believing 99% of scientists,I'm talking about investigating and looking to see if the evidence backs up the evolution rhetoric?I did this and anybody that can read can too.Look up the scientific definitions for evolution,micro evolution,macro evolution,natural selection then actually look for evidence to back up these definitions,it takes time and you'll find a lot of so-called evidence to wade through but if you actually make it your goal to know the truth by evidence,you will realize on your own that evolution is nowhere near truthful science,you can even ignore creationist sights that tell you this,even if you disagree with their creation theory,you'll still know evolution is not truthful science and those who have accepted it,do so because the scientific rhetoric that evolution is true science.
This song comes to mind when I think about evolutionists.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ISLKYUx7xpc

Evolution is a historical science and the theory is subject to change based on new evidence, the theory is an interpretation of historical evidence, like fossils, DNA, geology etc... etc... The problem is ACB that even if it is wrong, it is still the best theory we currently have that fits the evidence, no, I repeat no creation theory fits the evidence at all without massive problems with the evidence, so all we are left with is evolution and until a better theory comes along that fits the evidence better or new evidence is uncovered that changes the theory of evolution we have to go with it. Yes there are problems with evolution, no doubt about that, but it has far less problems than any other competing theory or creation perspective. I have looked at the evidence for evolution and it is very strong, I have read the creation evidence and they have nowhere near the explanatory power that actually fits the evidence that evolution has, not many people just believe 99% of scientists, most people have looked at the evidence for themselves, there is so much information out there that you can't help being educated on evolution. If you want to believe in Gap theory, that's cool bro, I have no issue with it, but it has nowhere near the explanatory power and it has major flaws, biblical and scientific, more so than other creation theories.

I have compared evolution to the different creation theories too. I need to know what evidence convinced you life evolves? Because you seem to be saying because the other creation theories have no where near the explantary power of them so evolution is the top theory going but I just cannot understand how you can believe life evolves.

I would accept evolution if the evidence backed it up,but it doesn't and knowing this I think you underestimate the gap theory for in my research it is the only creation theory that has defeated evolution in debates in colleges.It defeats evolution because it removes and uses a lot of the same evidence evolutionists use and no evolutionists can demonstrate life evolves,so it makes the evidence fit the gap theory much better especially when it is pointed out everything is looked at from an evolution perspective and yet it cannot even be demonstrated life evolves.The gap theory becomes more credible than evolution using much of the same evidence.

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Why don't people actually look at the evidence for life evolving instead of just believing 99% of scientists,I'm talking about investigating and looking to see if the evidence backs up the evolution rhetoric?I did this and anybody that can read can too.Look up the scientific definitions for evolution,micro evolution,macro evolution,natural selection then actually look for evidence to back up these definitions,it takes time and you'll find a lot of so-called evidence to wade through but if you actually make it your goal to know the truth by evidence,you will realize on your own that evolution is nowhere near truthful science,you can even ignore creationist sights that tell you this,even if you disagree with their creation theory,you'll still know evolution is not truthful science and those who have accepted it,do so because the scientific rhetoric that evolution is true science.
This song comes to mind when I think about evolutionists.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ISLKYUx7xpc

Evolution is a historical science and the theory is subject to change based on new evidence, the theory is an interpretation of historical evidence, like fossils, DNA, geology etc... etc... The problem is ACB that even if it is wrong, it is still the best theory we currently have that fits the evidence, no, I repeat no creation theory fits the evidence at all without massive problems with the evidence, so all we are left with is evolution and until a better theory comes along that fits the evidence better or new evidence is uncovered that changes the theory of evolution we have to go with it. Yes there are problems with evolution, no doubt about that, but it has far less problems than any other competing theory or creation perspective. I have looked at the evidence for evolution and it is very strong, I have read the creation evidence and they have nowhere near the explanatory power that actually fits the evidence that evolution has, not many people just believe 99% of scientists, most people have looked at the evidence for themselves, there is so much information out there that you can't help being educated on evolution. If you want to believe in Gap theory, that's cool bro, I have no issue with it, but it has nowhere near the explanatory power and it has major flaws, biblical and scientific, more so than other creation theories.

I have compared evolution to the different creation theories too. I need to know what evidence convinced you life evolves? Because you seem to be saying because the other creation theories have no where near the explantary power of them so evolution is the top theory going but I just cannot understand how you can believe life evolves.

I would accept evolution if the evidence backed it up,but it doesn't and knowing this I think you underestimate the gap theory for in my research it is the only creation theory that has defeated evolution in debates in colleges.It defeats evolution because it removes and uses a lot of the same evidence evolutionists use and no evolutionists can demonstrate life evolves,so it makes the evidence fit the gap theory much better especially when it is pointed out everything is looked at from an evolution perspective and yet it cannot even be demonstrated life evolves.The gap theory becomes more credible than evolution using much of the same evidence.

Are you a football fan, Abe?

Audie wrote:
What date would you assign to Adam and Eve?

Bible students vary a bit, but 6000 to possibly 10,000 years ago?

Audie wrote:

Storyteller wrote:Quick q?

Evolution... has it's problems, doesn't have to be a problem to faith.

Creationism... who was Adam then? A stone age man, a neandethal?

I'm nor 100 per cent evolution nor creationism.

Don't know enough but to me it's a minor detail.
(sorry for intruding, I am learning al this anew)

What date would you assign to Adam and Eve?

Bible students vary a bit, but 6000 to possibly 10,000 years ago?

Neanderthal died out around 40,000 years ago, tho some of their genetics
lives on in descendants among modern man.

Homo sapiens, modern man has been around for many tens of thousands of years.

Their ancestors were using fire nearly a million years ago.

Im sure its possible to have full faith in God, while not so disrespecting one's
ancestors as to be denying their very existence!

Good that you are interested to think about such things.

. Audie