Evidence for God from Science

hughfarey wrote:You're still going on, and on, about perspective, which suggests that you think that opinions or beliefs come before evidence rather than the other way round. Perhaps your own opinions reflect that philosophy; but you ought to understand that that is not the philosophy of others. I can look at a pile of fossils, or rock strata, or printouts of DNA bases, or whatever, and simply ask myself, how do all these things relate? What do they tell me? Your own posts suggest that you do not do that - you begin with a 'perspective', and then fit the evidence to it. That's not scientific.

If I'm wrong, and we both look at the same evidence in the same way, but come to different conclusions, then that's fine; we must agree to differ, and could discuss the reasons why, but that's not the way I read your posts.

YES, HE DOES THAT AND I THINK SINCERELY BELIEVES THAT SIMPLY, PERSPECTIVE, CHANGES DATA.

sorry for the caps.

neo-x wrote:

hughfarey wrote:You're still going on, and on, about perspective, which suggests that you think that opinions or beliefs come before evidence rather than the other way round. Perhaps your own opinions reflect that philosophy; but you ought to understand that that is not the philosophy of others. I can look at a pile of fossils, or rock strata, or printouts of DNA bases, or whatever, and simply ask myself, how do all these things relate? What do they tell me? Your own posts suggest that you do not do that - you begin with a 'perspective', and then fit the evidence to it. That's not scientific.

If I'm wrong, and we both look at the same evidence in the same way, but come to different conclusions, then that's fine; we must agree to differ, and could discuss the reasons why, but that's not the way I read your posts.

YES, HE DOES THAT AND I THINK SINCERELY BELIEVES THAT SIMPLY, PERSPECTIVE, CHANGES DATA.

sorry for the caps.

Or maybe that "perspective" (attitude) actually generates data.

He says he isnt making things up, tho the only possible source for many
fantastical ideas (like glaciers being "Stuck down") is his own imagination.

But once concocted, it becomes a fact.

hughfarey wrote:You're still going on, and on, about perspective, which suggests that you think that opinions or beliefs come before evidence rather than the other way round. Perhaps your own opinions reflect that philosophy; but you ought to understand that that is not the philosophy of others. I can look at a pile of fossils, or rock strata, or printouts of DNA bases, or whatever, and simply ask myself, how do all these things relate? What do they tell me? Your own posts suggest that you do not do that - you begin with a 'perspective', and then fit the evidence to it. That's not scientific.

If I'm wrong, and we both look at the same evidence in the same way, but come to different conclusions, then that's fine; we must agree to differ, and could discuss the reasons why, but that's not the way I read your posts.

I don't understand why you think this way because we determine what is true or not based on evidence.I explained before that we have been saturated with evolution and especially if we know about it.Opinions or beliefs are determined true or not based on evidence.It doesn't matter what we are talking about evidence determines what is true or not.Hypothesis's are not scientific? You start with a hypothesis and do testing to confirm or not.Why deny you look at the evidence from an evolution perspective?Anyway,not going to keep trying to get you to look at the evidence in and on the earth from a different perspective when it is clear you have your mind made up to continue to look at the evidence from an evolution perspective even when you know that no scientist has ever been able to demonstrate life evolves.I cannot use assumption and imagination to look at the evidence that way,but you choose to.

neo-x wrote:

hughfarey wrote:You're still going on, and on, about perspective, which suggests that you think that opinions or beliefs come before evidence rather than the other way round. Perhaps your own opinions reflect that philosophy; but you ought to understand that that is not the philosophy of others. I can look at a pile of fossils, or rock strata, or printouts of DNA bases, or whatever, and simply ask myself, how do all these things relate? What do they tell me? Your own posts suggest that you do not do that - you begin with a 'perspective', and then fit the evidence to it. That's not scientific.

If I'm wrong, and we both look at the same evidence in the same way, but come to different conclusions, then that's fine; we must agree to differ, and could discuss the reasons why, but that's not the way I read your posts.

YES, HE DOES THAT AND I THINK SINCERELY BELIEVES THAT SIMPLY, PERSPECTIVE, CHANGES DATA.

sorry for the caps.

You mad,with all caps?Don't be,this is just discussing evolution and whether or not we should choose to look at the evidence that way,or another way.I say another way,you may disagree.To me it depends on the Data and whether or not it is right or not based on evidence. If the Data is flawed and we look at the evidence from that perspective? It will distort what the evidence is showing us.If I thought the Data wasn't flawed I'd look at it from that perspective. I'd like to know what's in the Data that convinces ya'll to accept it.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

neo-x wrote:

hughfarey wrote:You're still going on, and on, about perspective, which suggests that you think that opinions or beliefs come before evidence rather than the other way round. Perhaps your own opinions reflect that philosophy; but you ought to understand that that is not the philosophy of others. I can look at a pile of fossils, or rock strata, or printouts of DNA bases, or whatever, and simply ask myself, how do all these things relate? What do they tell me? Your own posts suggest that you do not do that - you begin with a 'perspective', and then fit the evidence to it. That's not scientific.

If I'm wrong, and we both look at the same evidence in the same way, but come to different conclusions, then that's fine; we must agree to differ, and could discuss the reasons why, but that's not the way I read your posts.

YES, HE DOES THAT AND I THINK SINCERELY BELIEVES THAT SIMPLY, PERSPECTIVE, CHANGES DATA.

sorry for the caps.

You mad,with all caps?Don't be,this is just discussing evolution and whether or not we should choose to look at the evidence that way,or another way.I say another way,you may disagree.To me it depends on the Data and whether or not it is right or not based on evidence. If the Data is flawed and we look at the evidence from that perspective? It will distort what the evidence is showing us.If I thought the Data wasn't flawed I'd look at it from that perspective. I'd like to know what's in the Data that convinces ya'll to accept it.

I wasn't mad, just looked at the end that I had typed accidently in all caps, hence the note "sorry for the caps"

I'm at we don't really know for sure. Although the evidence points to theistic evolution as Genesis 1,2,3 has to interpenetrated as a Parable and that certain things don't make sense and it is how ancient bronze age man saw the universe. Although Genesis has important spiritual points and sets up the Jewish calendar which is important to many Judaeo christian prophecies.

Although God can do miracles. In the main the universe seems to be running on science.( there are definitely unscientific things in the bible ) The laws, maths and physics seem to be in a precise order of things. God is of course the ultimate scientist, designer (creator) who knew what would happen with his science. But he could of been a lot less hands on than many Christians think after he set the universe in to action although knowing what would happen.

abelcainsbrother wrote:I don't understand why you think this way because we determine what is true or not based on evidence.I explained before that we have been saturated with evolution and especially if we know about it.Opinions or beliefs are determined true or not based on evidence.It doesn't matter what we are talking about evidence determines what is true or not.Hypothesis's are not scientific? You start with a hypothesis and do testing to confirm or not.Why deny you look at the evidence from an evolution perspective?Anyway,not going to keep trying to get you to look at the evidence in and on the earth from a different perspective when it is clear you have your mind made up to continue to look at the evidence from an evolution perspective even when you know that no scientist has ever been able to demonstrate life evolves.I cannot use assumption and imagination to look at the evidence that way,but you choose to.

Oh, dear me, this seems rather confused. I think your best plan here might be to stop pretending that you speak for anybody other than yourself, and just put your own point of view. You say: "we have been saturated with evolution," but this is no more than a personal generalisation on your part - it certainly doesn't apply to me. You ask: "Why deny you look at the evidence from an evolution perspective?" but you have no idea whether I do or not. You say: "it is clear you have your mind made up to continue to look at the evidence from an evolution perspective", when I have continually told you that scientists do not look at things from a "perspective" of any kind. Finally, you say: "I cannot use assumption and imagination to look at the evidence that way,but you choose to," when you have continually admitted that you look at evidence (though you never tell us what it is) having already made up your mind what to fit it to, while I have repeatedly told you that I choose not to.

So why not forget evolution for a moment, and look at your own hypothesis.
Is the diversity of species due to acts of spontaneous creation after 10000 years ago? Note that this is not a "perspective" or a "point of view", as the answer, before examining the evidence, can be either yes or no.
Now, look for, and present, some evidence.
1) The kiwi is a unique animal unlike any other.
2) No fossil from before 10,000 years ago resembles any living organism.
3) A global layer of uniformly dated sediment indicates a worldwide inundation and the extinction of all species of organism then living.
4) A global layer of iridium indicates the impact of a meteor so huge that no living organism could have survived it.
If any of the 'evidences' above were true, then there might be some justification in your belief that the answer to the hypothesis is yes. Perhaps you think that they are true statements. However, I don't think that they are. In fact I have never seen any evidence supporting a 'yes' answer to the hypothetical question. Have you? If so, what is it?

dougangel wrote:I'm at we don't really know for sure. Although the evidence points to theistic evolution as Genesis 1,2,3 has to interpenetrated as a Parable and that certain things don't make sense and it is how ancient bronze age man saw the universe. Although Genesis has important spiritual points and sets up the Jewish calendar which is important to many Judaeo christian prophecies.

Although God can do miracles. In the main the universe seems to be running on science.( there are definitely unscientific things in the bible ) The laws, maths and physics seem to be in a precise order of things. God is of course the ultimate scientist, designer (creator) who knew what would happen with his science. But he could of been a lot less hands on than many Christians think after he set the universe in to action although knowing what would happen.

I think it also depends on our understanding of science as far as evolution is concerned in order to be able to compare both theories. There are alot of Christians who reject evolution and don't trust scientists and eventhogh they reject evolution they don't know enough about it to know about the evidence behind evolution,they just reject it and explain their creation interpretation.

So in this case it should come down for a Christian to actually understand how the bible teaches there was a former world and decide if it actually does fit the evidence in the earth better than evolution. And unlike theistic evolutionists you don't have to read Genesis as a parable and I think the evidence fits better.

I also think it is important for a person to decide if they accept evolution or not in order to know whether or not we should even look at the evidence as if evolution is true. If they already reject evolution then they may can already realize a former world full of life like this world,but different once existed until it perished completely until God made this world and made and created the life for this world. In other words a lost world that has been overlooked because of evolution and people not knowing about how the bible teaches it and how the evidence confirms it.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

dougangel wrote:I'm at we don't really know for sure. Although the evidence points to theistic evolution as Genesis 1,2,3 has to interpenetrated as a Parable and that certain things don't make sense and it is how ancient bronze age man saw the universe. Although Genesis has important spiritual points and sets up the Jewish calendar which is important to many Judaeo christian prophecies.

Although God can do miracles. In the main the universe seems to be running on science.( there are definitely unscientific things in the bible ) The laws, maths and physics seem to be in a precise order of things. God is of course the ultimate scientist, designer (creator) who knew what would happen with his science. But he could of been a lot less hands on than many Christians think after he set the universe in to action although knowing what would happen.

I think it also depends on our understanding of science as far as evolution is concerned in order to be able to compare both theories. There are alot of Christians who reject evolution and don't trust scientists and eventhogh they reject evolution they don't know enough about it to know about the evidence behind evolution,they just reject it and explain their creation interpretation.

So in this case it should come down for a Christian to actually understand how the bible teaches there was a former world and decide if it actually does fit the evidence in the earth better than evolution. And unlike theistic evolutionists you don't have to read Genesis as a parable and I think the evidence fits better.

I also think it is important for a person to decide if they accept evolution or not in order to know whether or not we should even look at the evidence as if evolution is true. If they already reject evolution then they may can already realize a former world full of life like this world,but different once existed until it perished completely until God made this world and made and created the life for this world. In other words a lost world that has been overlooked because of evolution and people not knowing about how the bible teaches it and how the evidence confirms it.

You would have to explain your view to me. There are quite a few different types of view. Here is mine.
The bible isn't a science book and I don't think science should be taught out of it. There is incorrect science in it.
The point is the bible isn't a science book and you should not be proving science with it.
This is my understanding of the topic. Also, we should not conclude that this way of talking about the physical world is what the Bible teaches as a reality, something in which we must believe in order to believe Scripture. Instead, this is the way ancient people talked about their experience of the world in the absence of any scientific knowledge about the processes at work in the world. Certainly we would describe the world today in much different terms. But then we live 3,000 years later in human history with much more knowledge about the physical world, and a different conceptual model and different vocabulary with which to describe the world.

We certainly affirm that Scripture is fully inspired by God (plenary inspiration ). Yet what is interesting is that even with inspiration, God allowed these ancient ways of looking at the world to stand without correction. In other words, God did not reveal modern scientific knowledge to the ancient Israelites, or correct their ancient views of the way the world works. He let them express marvelous truths about God in the language and culture in which they lived. That incarnational dimension of Scripture is crucial for us to understand if we are to hear adequately the important confessions about God and humanity that Scripture expresses

dougangel wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

dougangel wrote:I'm at we don't really know for sure. Although the evidence points to theistic evolution as Genesis 1,2,3 has to interpenetrated as a Parable and that certain things don't make sense and it is how ancient bronze age man saw the universe. Although Genesis has important spiritual points and sets up the Jewish calendar which is important to many Judaeo christian prophecies.

Although God can do miracles. In the main the universe seems to be running on science.( there are definitely unscientific things in the bible ) The laws, maths and physics seem to be in a precise order of things. God is of course the ultimate scientist, designer (creator) who knew what would happen with his science. But he could of been a lot less hands on than many Christians think after he set the universe in to action although knowing what would happen.

I think it also depends on our understanding of science as far as evolution is concerned in order to be able to compare both theories. There are alot of Christians who reject evolution and don't trust scientists and eventhogh they reject evolution they don't know enough about it to know about the evidence behind evolution,they just reject it and explain their creation interpretation.

So in this case it should come down for a Christian to actually understand how the bible teaches there was a former world and decide if it actually does fit the evidence in the earth better than evolution. And unlike theistic evolutionists you don't have to read Genesis as a parable and I think the evidence fits better.

I also think it is important for a person to decide if they accept evolution or not in order to know whether or not we should even look at the evidence as if evolution is true. If they already reject evolution then they may can already realize a former world full of life like this world,but different once existed until it perished completely until God made this world and made and created the life for this world. In other words a lost world that has been overlooked because of evolution and people not knowing about how the bible teaches it and how the evidence confirms it.

You would have to explain your view to me. There are quite a few different types of view. Here is mine.
The bible isn't a science book and I don't think science should be taught out of it. There is incorrect science in it.
The point is the bible isn't a science book and you should not be proving science with it.
This is my understanding of the topic. Also, we should not conclude that this way of talking about the physical world is what the Bible teaches as a reality, something in which we must believe in order to believe Scripture. Instead, this is the way ancient people talked about their experience of the world in the absence of any scientific knowledge about the processes at work in the world. Certainly we would describe the world today in much different terms. But then we live 3,000 years later in human history with much more knowledge about the physical world, and a different conceptual model and different vocabulary with which to describe the world.

We certainly affirm that Scripture is fully inspired by God (plenary inspiration ). Yet what is interesting is that even with inspiration, God allowed these ancient ways of looking at the world to stand without correction. In other words, God did not reveal modern scientific knowledge to the ancient Israelites, or correct their ancient views of the way the world works. He let them express marvelous truths about God in the language and culture in which they lived. That incarnational dimension of Scripture is crucial for us to understand if we are to hear adequately the important confessions about God and humanity that Scripture expresses

Well every creation interpretation seems to have science behind their theory.It not only comes down to the interpretation we accept but also the science behind them. Alot of what you say is true however there are many ways that we can know God's word has been confirmed true overtime,it is full of prophecy,etc and more is revealed as time goes on,so why not when it comes to creationism? I think we all realize that we all can't be right and so I think it is important to have these kinds of discussions so that as Christians we can discuss and update even as more is revealed. I think that we can have a tendency to just say there is no way to really know for sure and it will all get sorted out when we get to heaven but this is the one I accept. I don't ever want to think this way myself I want to get to the truth of it now and I'm willing to change and update- renew my mind if I got something wrong.I'm not the type that refuses to change just because I've thought this way or taught this for years,etc. I really want the truth as best as can be at anytime.

dougangel wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

dougangel wrote:I'm at we don't really know for sure. Although the evidence points to theistic evolution as Genesis 1,2,3 has to interpenetrated as a Parable and that certain things don't make sense and it is how ancient bronze age man saw the universe. Although Genesis has important spiritual points and sets up the Jewish calendar which is important to many Judaeo christian prophecies.

Although God can do miracles. In the main the universe seems to be running on science.( there are definitely unscientific things in the bible ) The laws, maths and physics seem to be in a precise order of things. God is of course the ultimate scientist, designer (creator) who knew what would happen with his science. But he could of been a lot less hands on than many Christians think after he set the universe in to action although knowing what would happen.

I think it also depends on our understanding of science as far as evolution is concerned in order to be able to compare both theories. There are alot of Christians who reject evolution and don't trust scientists and eventhogh they reject evolution they don't know enough about it to know about the evidence behind evolution,they just reject it and explain their creation interpretation.

So in this case it should come down for a Christian to actually understand how the bible teaches there was a former world and decide if it actually does fit the evidence in the earth better than evolution. And unlike theistic evolutionists you don't have to read Genesis as a parable and I think the evidence fits better.

I also think it is important for a person to decide if they accept evolution or not in order to know whether or not we should even look at the evidence as if evolution is true. If they already reject evolution then they may can already realize a former world full of life like this world,but different once existed until it perished completely until God made this world and made and created the life for this world. In other words a lost world that has been overlooked because of evolution and people not knowing about how the bible teaches it and how the evidence confirms it.

You would have to explain your view to me. There are quite a few different types of view. Here is mine.
The bible isn't a science book and I don't think science should be taught out of it. There is incorrect science in it.
The point is the bible isn't a science book and you should not be proving science with it.
This is my understanding of the topic. Also, we should not conclude that this way of talking about the physical world is what the Bible teaches as a reality, something in which we must believe in order to believe Scripture. Instead, this is the way ancient people talked about their experience of the world in the absence of any scientific knowledge about the processes at work in the world. Certainly we would describe the world today in much different terms. But then we live 3,000 years later in human history with much more knowledge about the physical world, and a different conceptual model and different vocabulary with which to describe the world.

We certainly affirm that Scripture is fully inspired by God (plenary inspiration ). Yet what is interesting is that even with inspiration, God allowed these ancient ways of looking at the world to stand without correction. In other words, God did not reveal modern scientific knowledge to the ancient Israelites, or correct their ancient views of the way the world works. He let them express marvelous truths about God in the language and culture in which they lived. That incarnational dimension of Scripture is crucial for us to understand if we are to hear adequately the important confessions about God and humanity that Scripture expresses

Well every creation interpretation seems to have science behind their theory.It not only comes down to the interpretation we accept but also the science behind them. Alot of what you say is true however there are many ways that we can know God's word has been confirmed true overtime,it is full of prophecy,etc and more is revealed as time goes on,so why not when it comes to creationism? I think we all realize that we all can't be right and so I think it is important to have these kinds of discussions so that as Christians we can discuss and update even as more is revealed. I think that we can have a tendency to just say there is no way to really know for sure and it will all get sorted out when we get to heaven but this is the one I accept. I don't ever want to think this way myself I want to get to the truth of it now and I'm willing to change and update- renew my mind if I got something wrong.I'm not the type that refuses to change just because I've thought this way or taught this for years,etc. I really want the truth as best as can be at anytime.

abelcainsbrother wrote:I also think it is important for a person to decide if they accept evolution or not in order to know whether or not we should even look at the evidence as if evolution is true.

Ah! Is this how you approach all your ideas, I wonder? First decide your view, then decide whether to look for evidence to support it? Evolution or creation - choose one, and afterwards fit the evidence to it. Well, it's an approach, but truly cannot be said to be a very scientific or rational one.

dougangel wrote:I'm at we don't really know for sure. Although the evidence points to theistic evolution as Genesis 1,2,3 has to interpenetrated as a Parable and that certain things don't make sense and it is how ancient bronze age man saw the universe. Although Genesis has important spiritual points and sets up the Jewish calendar which is important to many Judaeo christian prophecies.

Although God can do miracles. In the main the universe seems to be running on science.( there are definitely unscientific things in the bible ) The laws, maths and physics seem to be in a precise order of things. God is of course the ultimate scientist, designer (creator) who knew what would happen with his science. But he could of been a lot less hands on than many Christians think after he set the universe in to action although knowing what would happen.

What evidence points to "theistic evolution"?

hughfarey wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I also think it is important for a person to decide if they accept evolution or not in order to know whether or not we should even look at the evidence as if evolution is true.

Ah! Is this how you approach all your ideas, I wonder? First decide your view, then decide whether to look for evidence to support it? Evolution or creation - choose one, and afterwards fit the evidence to it. Well, it's an approach, but truly cannot be said to be a very scientific or rational one.

It is worse than that. All evidence contrary to believe is false, and all researchers who generate
unsatisfactory data are to be distrusted. Some even say they are agents of Satan.

In the even, all evidence is subject to SEDI, and run thro' the Converter, to mean whatever one chooses
to belidve.

It goes further than that; creationists like this one present as knowing more than any scientist on earth.

It goes lower than that, too, way lower. When presented with the most obvious demonstration that
world flood cannot have actually happened, the whole pretense of going with evidence goes out the window.

First it was that sure, the polar ice floated when the flood came; but it did not melt coz the water
was cold and a spinning current held it in place. There was no reply to the q of how it was dropped back in precisely the same place, onto every ridge and mountain, just so.

So that made up excuse was dropped, replaced with that the glaciers were
"stuck down". Billions of tons buoyancy cannot overcome the adhesion; that glacier are sliding along the bedrock and in some cases it is actually liquid water at the base? Makes no difference,
they musta been stuck.

After that, the creationists usually go back to how the scientists are phonies and their data is wrong; the ice core dating, all of it. But why bother listening to stage 3 rationalizing.

What you are dealing with there is a complete breakdown of rational data based thinking,
replaced with ideology driven intellectual dishonesty taken to an hallucinatory and rather pitiful
extreme.

IF you managed to crack that shell of delusions, what do you think would come out of it?

Audie wrote:

dougangel wrote:I'm at we don't really know for sure. Although the evidence points to theistic evolution as Genesis 1,2,3 has to interpenetrated as a Parable and that certain things don't make sense and it is how ancient bronze age man saw the universe. Although Genesis has important spiritual points and sets up the Jewish calendar which is important to many Judaeo christian prophecies.

Although God can do miracles. In the main the universe seems to be running on science.( there are definitely unscientific things in the bible ) The laws, maths and physics seem to be in a precise order of things. God is of course the ultimate scientist, designer (creator) who knew what would happen with his science. But he could of been a lot less hands on than many Christians think after he set the universe in to action although knowing what would happen.

What evidence points to "theistic evolution"?

The whole universe is running on logical science. The creation story doesn't. We are biological creatures. God is definitely using adaptation. Why wouldn't he use evolution on how he created man. There are scientific errors in the bible.the creation story reads like a parable and there are logical problems with it.