Evidence for God from Science

On topic of the thread, if anyone actually could come up with even one
"serious problem' with ToE, I would be most interested to hear it.

How about the evidence put forth by scientists for evidence life evolves demonstrates life does not evolve?Even if you go by their own definitions.

Re above posts, excuses aint data.

What's the point? To you, and others, it's like religion. No matter what is presented, to those who believe in the whole enchilada of evolutionary origins such is sacrosanct. I mean, isn't that why you keep posing that question, to re-verify to yourself over and over how right you are? Those who are passionate about it will continue to dogmatically believe in it, there's no other story without God.

Audie wrote:Re above posts, excuses aint data.

I agree,excuses ain't data.If you really believe excuses ain't data you'd reject evolution,like I do,even if gap theory is not your choice,there are others,I just like gap theory even with the glacier ice problem I acknowledged is not an easy thing to get around.It is not like we ignore it,but did you know that there was a scientific explanation for a global flood and the book was forwarded by Albert Einstein? It made a credible case for a global flood scientifically based.

Kurieuo wrote:What's the point? To you, and others, it's like religion. No matter what is presented, to those who believe in the whole enchilada of evolutionary origins such is sacrosanct. I mean, isn't that why you keep posing that question, to re-verify to yourself over and over how right you are? Those who are passionate about it will continue to dogmatically believe in it, there's no other story without God.

It wasnt me who started the thread. I pointed out that it is hollow; nobody has any dats to offer.
or even an evident notion of what "serious problem" might be.

If you dont like what I say, dont read it. I dont invent motives or mind sets for your posts.

ToE has zero (O) to do with "god", btw. Why even bring that in? Your contribution here is....?

Some call me Krink, don't krinks rudely interrupt? Ok, I'll back out, you're right you didn't start the thread with a challenge. You have a right to challenge back, but I still stand by my words.

Kurieuo wrote:Some call me Krink, don't krinks rudely interrupt? Ok, I'll back out, you're right you didn't start the thread with a challenge. You have a right to challenge back, but I still stand by my words.

"Stick to your krinks".

Kurieuo wrote:What's the point? To you, and others, it's like religion. No matter what is presented, to those who believe in the whole enchilada of evolutionary origins such is sacrosanct. I mean, isn't that why you keep posing that question, to re-verify to yourself over and over how right you are? Those who are passionate about it will continue to dogmatically believe in it, there's no other story without God.

I can sympathize with Audie on her statement. really no one has given any serious objection to ToE. I believe it's true because of the data, the evidence. Critics of ToE, keep hammering it down via objections that don't prove anything and don't even prove the data wrong which supports ToE but then, as ACB does, continuously claim that the theory is wrong.

I mean seriously, if sites like RTB and others of the same nature really have proved problems with ToE, they don't present evidence nor data that shows as such. They publish private books but won't submit it to be peer reviewed. Instead they usually tweak and twist words and try to stuff it into the scriptures.

The next Nobel could be handed to the person who proves the ToE data wrong. And no pun intended here it would be amazing to see if there is another mechanism proving ToE false.

I have seen very few people who actually engage the ToE supported data, most people simply don't understand it or think of it worth enough to look into, lest they might have their eyes opened, pun intended. But seriously I think it's better to have a discussion, argument, on the data of what proves what rather than sweeping statements about ToE being false.

NOTE: K, I haven't read the link in your post. My comment is just a general comment intended more towards posters who don't engage the data. I hope this clears it.

neo-x wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:What's the point? To you, and others, it's like religion. No matter what is presented, to those who believe in the whole enchilada of evolutionary origins such is sacrosanct. I mean, isn't that why you keep posing that question, to re-verify to yourself over and over how right you are? Those who are passionate about it will continue to dogmatically believe in it, there's no other story without God.

I can sympathize with Audie on her statement. really no one has given any serious objection to ToE. I believe it's true because of the data, the evidence. Critics of ToE, keep hammering it down via objections that don't prove anything and don't even prove the data wrong which supports ToE but then, as ACB does, continuously claim that the theory is wrong.

I mean seriously, if sites like RTB and others of the same nature really have proved problems with ToE, they don't present evidence nor data that shows as such. They publish private books but won't submit it to be peer reviewed. Instead they usually tweak and twist words and try to stuff it into the scriptures.

The next Nobel could be handed to the person who proves the ToE data wrong. And no pun intended here it would be amazing to see if there is another mechanism proving ToE false.

I have seen very few people who actually engage the ToE supported data, most people simply don't understand it or think of it worth enough to look into, lest they might have their eyes opened, pun intended. But seriously I think it's better to have a discussion, argument, on the data of what proves what rather than sweeping statements about ToE being false.

NOTE: K, I haven't read the link in your post. My comment is just a general comment intended more towards posters who don't engage the data. I hope this clears it.

Showing ToE to be false would be perhaps the greatest scientific discovery of all time. The implications / consequences would be incalculable.

I am no expert, but it does not require one to observe that all of the
"proofs" entered into evidence against ToE consist of misrepresentations,
irrelevancies, distortions, strawmen*, fractional truths, and of course, outright fabrications. Assertions of facts not in evidence**.

I dont expect those who just cannot accept ToE for religious reasons to be able to reset their thermostats in accordance with any facts, it is a very rare thing for a person to be able to do.

I would kind of think tho that some few more would have the intellectual honesty to openly accept that there is in actuality no known evidence that ToE is false, and that they themselves certainly do not know what such evidence might be, if it is in fact out there somewhere waiting to be discovered.


*prominent among these is the one about the origin of the universe being somehow related to whether ToE is an accurate description of how life changes over time.


** "there is no evidence that life evolves" is simply a falsehood. Stated out of complete ignorance or stubborn refusal, hardly matters. Whether one loses his soul after repeating the same falsehood three times, I wouldnt know.
Integrity if for sure gone.

I've said before, many of the same facts claimed for ToE fit with in Progressive Creation. You'd be hard pressed to present any know fact, assumed to prove a ToE that couldn't be also be point to PC.

At that link, I offer some reasoning for why I believe PC is a better fit based upon certain features Naturalists (and Naturalist-leaning Theists) just assume have to have been Evolution because it's a "natural" explanation regardless of large improbabilities. (natural in quotes, because I don't believe anything is truly natural, just stable and predictable which itself, for me, points to something other keeping the "natural" order in check)

Kurieuo wrote:I've said before, many of the same facts claimed for ToE fit with in Progressive Creation. You'd be hard pressed to present any know fact, assumed to prove a ToE that couldn't be also be point to PC.

Yes and no. Evidence can certainly suggest different things to different people. To babies, I'm told, a teddy bear which is suddenly hidden behind a chair ceases to exists, and then springs back into existence when it pops up again, producing squeals of delight. Similarly, a sequence of fossils from successively different eras could be interpreted as a series of extinctions followed by re-creations, as well as descent with modification. The question then becomes a philosophical one - which explanation fits the evidence best.

At that link, I offer some reasoning for why I believe PC is a better fit based upon certain features Naturalists (and Naturalist-leaning Theists) just assume have to have been Evolution because it's a "natural" explanation regardless of large improbabilities.

The calculation of improbabilities in historical events is usually unwise. The historical succession of events leading to almost any present day situation involves a cumulative array of improbabilities that ought to mean that nothing at all either exists or occurs. I think that attempting to calculate mathematically whether the spontaneous creation of a symbiotic system is more or less improbable than the evolution of one is not a good determinant of what actually happened.

I don't believe anything is truly natural, just stable and predictable which itself, for me, points to something other keeping the "natural" order in check)

If keeping the natural order in check involves endless intermittent acts of spontaneous adjustment, then I feel that whoever was responsible for the natural order in the first place was not very good at it. A system which works brilliantly without forever being fiddled with - now that's what I call clever.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Did you know that there was a scientific explanation for a global flood and the book was forwarded by Albert Einstein?

No, I didn't, and I don't believe it. Can you name it? Have you read it, or its forward? No. I thought not.

Kurieuo wrote:I've said before, many of the same facts claimed for ToE fit with in Progressive Creation. You'd be hard pressed to present any know fact, assumed to prove a ToE that couldn't be also be point to PC.

I know you are better than this. "prove ToE"? "Assumed"? You are talking like abe.

There may be various POVs on "progressive". I dont know yours, or how much you actually know of the fossil record.

There are species known from a single specimen, sometimes a single bone.
Does that "point to" PC?

I would kinda like to know your idea, perhaps you can convert me or I can disabuse you of it.

"Points to" is not really the same as "fully consistent with all known data".

I will check your link.

At that link, I offer some reasoning for why I believe PC is a better fit based upon certain features Naturalists (and Naturalist-leaning Theists) just assume have to have been Evolution because it's a "natural" explanation regardless of large improbabilities.

Going abe on us again.

(natural in quotes, because I don't believe anything is truly natural, just stable and predictable which itself, for me, points to something other keeping the "natural" order in check

Could be something does, tho the something you envision seems a bit inept to me. Constantly having to tinker with something that sputters along almost working.

WHAT is wrong with natural selection of genetic variations?

Why cant your god get that to work?

hughfarey wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I've said before, many of the same facts claimed for ToE fit with in Progressive Creation. You'd be hard pressed to present any know fact, assumed to prove a ToE that couldn't be also be point to PC.

Yes and no. Evidence can certainly suggest different things to different people. To babies, I'm told, a teddy bear which is suddenly hidden behind a chair ceases to exists, and then springs back into existence when it pops up again, producing squeals of delight. Similarly, a sequence of fossils from successively different eras could be interpreted as a series of extinctions followed by re-creations, as well as descent with modification. The question then becomes a philosophical one - which explanation fits the evidence best.

At that link, I offer some reasoning for why I believe PC is a better fit based upon certain features Naturalists (and Naturalist-leaning Theists) just assume have to have been Evolution because it's a "natural" explanation regardless of large improbabilities.

The calculation of improbabilities in historical events is usually unwise. The historical succession of events leading to almost any present day situation involves a cumulative array of improbabilities that ought to mean that nothing at all either exists or occurs. I think that attempting to calculate mathematically whether the spontaneous creation of a symbiotic system is more or less improbable than the evolution of one is not a good determinant of what actually happened.

I don't believe anything is truly natural, just stable and predictable which itself, for me, points to something other keeping the "natural" order in check)

If keeping the natural order in check involves endless intermittent acts of spontaneous adjustment, then I feel that whoever was responsible for the natural order in the first place was not very good at it. A system which works brilliantly without forever being fiddled with - now that's what I call clever.

So don't you believe God sustains everything, every single atom and the laws they follow, in existence?

Further, to someone already committed to evolution, Progressive Creation would appear suspect, just like vice-versa. We can only do our best to weigh the evidence given no one has witnessed matters and what we have is circumstantial and what I'd call incredible borderline impossible odds of all life evolving (and re-evolving) "on its own" (according to orderly laws we call "natural" due to the way they appear to "just run" in a stable and predicable manner) from a common ancestor. I haven't even mentioned the complexity of information in life and actual biological language itself which convinced Francis Collins, Antony Flew and others of something more at play.

Still further, only one of the two theories I mentioned, between Evolution and PC, accounts for both consciousness and physicality. The other only really presents a story of half the picture. (And for Audie's sake, by "consciousness" I mean more than awareness, in intellectual circles it's come to more not merely a conscious state but also degrees and levels. For example, level of intelligence, spirituality, moral expression, communication and the host of other feature that make human "consciousness" a massive leap from all previous life).

As for my particular PC view Hugh, if interested you can read a little about it here: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 15#p168162