Evidence for God from Science

Morny wrote:

bippy123 wrote:As far as DNA similarities that can also be explained by intelligent design as a. Designer would be working with similar material when designing .
As far as common descent , we can use the same car analogy . They all look familiar and they all came from a simple prototype design , but they were all designed

This common misunderstanding about common descent has appeared in the last few days in various forms from at least 3 different posters.

Human car designs freely swap sub-components across models. Common descent doesn't. Car models can form multiple nested hierarchies. But the one objective nested hierarchy from biological traits supports common descent. God could have designed species, but did so with the implication of common descent.

bippy123 wrote:And since most if evolution is historical science ,

Common descent rests on the biological traits of living species. Historical evidence is unnecessary.

Actually common descent is historical science. If we didn't have the fossils how else could we observe these traits to see if they were related or not . It's incredible that you would say that as evolutionary biologists have been saying what I've claimed that they said for many years . One example that they tend to bring up is mammal looking reptiles found in the Permian period , yet fail to bring up others that don't fit well with their model.
It is most clearly historical science as the biological traits have to be observed and interpreted.

As I showed many times intelligent design also works here as the designer is working with the same material.
To say that historical evidence isn't necessary is amazing to say the least .

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

1over137 wrote:I think I have resigned to fix Audie's quotes anymore. The above post, the post here

Yes Hana, I know what you mean. It must be because her posts are evolving. Because, if there were any intelligent creator of those quotes, they would make more sense.

There is as theory that Im not as intelligent as I like to think I am.

The theory of intelligent design isn't based upon whether it is optimum design for one simple reason, namely that we don't know the full purpose if the designer, and this is why I continually chuckle at neil degrassi tyson when he claims that the designer is a lousy designer because he didn't input optimal design into his creations. The bible has an explanation for that and it's called sin and a fallen world .

Again just be uses something isn't optimally designed doesn't mean it was t designed as my car analogy clearly shows .

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:You see people,evolutionists preach evolution is true like a preacher preaching about Jesus but when you point out there is no evidence in science that proves,shows or demonstrates life evolves,you just get the bit about 99% of scientists accept it,so I do too and you should too.

It is faith based which means I'm going to put my faith in God's word that God created the life in this world to produce after its kind like the bible tells us which is backed up by evidence all around us,we see and observe it because it is true and true faith is not blind,read your bible there is substance and evidence to faith if you put your faith in the truth,if not you will not have substance and evidence which is what we get when it comes to life evolving,it is believed by blind faith but the preaching it is true has worked for many,not me though.

We all have faith in God's word but God's word is silent on these matters, however you have put faith in your interpretation of God's word, let's not confuse your interpretation with God's word, or are you saying ACB that you are God? Because it certainly seems that way.

I however put my trust in God, even if my view on creation is wrong and my interpretation of his word is wrong, I trust that God has it altogether and he will show me all the secrets in due time.

I'm saying what I said and I put my faith in God's word which tells us God created the life in this world to produce after its kind,I cannot put my faith in evolution because of blind faith and evolution would violate and make God's word wrong that kinds produce after their kind.

I'm not judging just explaining why and what I put my faith in.

I don't feel evolution contradicts God's word as God's word was never intended to be a scientific explanation of the world but rather a theological explanation of why we are here, who God is and what he wants for us. If the Bible was meant to give a scientific explanation of the world then why isn't it more comprehensive, why would an omniscient and omnipotent God give us a book that really is short on any sort of scientific explanation of the world around us. It just makes no sense to say it is a science book or to interpret it as one.

Unless of course to help us realize that our salvation is based on Christ

bippy123 wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

1over137 wrote:I think I have resigned to fix Audie's quotes anymore. The above post, the post here

Yes Hana, I know what you mean. It must be because her posts are evolving. Because, if there were any intelligent creator of those quotes, they would make more sense.

There is as theory that Im not as intelligent as I like to think I am.

The theory of intelligent design isn't based upon whether it is optimum design for one simple reason, namely that we don't know the full purpose if the designer, and this is why I continually chuckle at neil degrassi tyson when he claims that the designer is a lousy designer because he didn't input optimal design into his creations. The bible has an explanation for that and it's called sin and a fallen world .

Again just be uses something isn't optimally designed doesn't mean it was t designed as my car analogy clearly shows .

My issue with ID is that, well, there is no evidence for it other than what is implied by what seems like a design AND that certain things in nature seem, well, if designed that way, not to be very reflective of a loving God.
Case in point things like the spider wasp:
A female wasp will search the ground and tree trunks for a spider, and upon finding one, will sting it, paralyzing the spider. Once the spider is paralyzed, the female wasp will make a burrow or take the spider to a previously made burrow. She will lay one single egg on the abdomen of the spider using her ovipositor, and then enclose the spider in the burrow.[16] The egg will hatch and the larva will feed on the spider.

IF the wasp was designed By God AS IS to do just that, it seems a very cruel design by a loving God.

bippy123 wrote:Actually common descent is historical science. If we didn't have the fossils how else could we observe these traits to see if they were related or not .

Uh, we observe these traits from present day living things. Grouping by biological traits, a porpoise always nests with a cat, not with a salmon. Confidence in common descent doesn't require fossil evidence. But fossil and DNA evidence does independently corroborate the evidence from these biological traits.

bippy123 wrote:To say that historical evidence isn't necessary is amazing to say the least .

I agree - amazing indeed! That the biological traits of present day living things form one objective nested hierarchy is truly amazing. That hierarchy might also be bewildering, if Darwin hadn't realized that common descent explains the pattern.

bippy123 wrote:As I showed many times intelligent design also works here as the designer is working with the same material.

Yes, designers have an admirably efficient habit of mixing and matching sub-components, but then their resulting products do not form the one objective nested hierarchy that does result from the biological traits of living things.

bippy123 wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

1over137 wrote:I think I have resigned to fix Audie's quotes anymore. The above post, the post here

Yes Hana, I know what you mean. It must be because her posts are evolving. Because, if there were any intelligent creator of those quotes, they would make more sense.

There is as theory that Im not as intelligent as I like to think I am.

The theory of intelligent design isn't based upon whether it is optimum design for one simple reason, namely that we don't know the full purpose if the designer, and this is why I continually chuckle at neil degrassi tyson when he claims that the designer is a lousy designer because he didn't input optimal design into his creations. The bible has an explanation for that and it's called sin and a fallen world .

Again just be uses something isn't optimally designed doesn't mean it was t designed as my car analogy clearly shows .

This is all based on assuming there is a designer, which nowhere be demonstrated to exist nor to be necessary.

I dont think "id" meets minimum criteria for a theory.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

bippy123 wrote:

neo-x wrote:Sometimes I really wish I could go back to the days when I was a YEC, everything made so much sense and was much simpler.

Neo why does it have to be YEC my friend or evolution ?
Why not explore old earth creationism or ID

Remember in genesis it says that God created the universe in 6 YOMS. YOM in Hebrew can mean either literal day or indefinite time period

http://www.oldearth.org

Many of my fellow Christians make the mistake of reading genesis in only English, not knowing that words in the Hebrew language can have multiple meanings . YOM is still used in lebanese and Levantine Arabic and it is still used in multiple ways as well. This I know for a fact .

Why can't we all just take the position of who cares!!! Is it really that important???

I dont personally how it could possibly not matter to a believer whether his book of Divine Truth was riddled with
matters which are not factually correct.

Is it not so blatantly there to see? Someone here said I am blind, but he can see.

I dont think so.

Audie wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

bippy123 wrote:

neo-x wrote:Sometimes I really wish I could go back to the days when I was a YEC, everything made so much sense and was much simpler.

Neo why does it have to be YEC my friend or evolution ?
Why not explore old earth creationism or ID

Remember in genesis it says that God created the universe in 6 YOMS. YOM in Hebrew can mean either literal day or indefinite time period

http://www.oldearth.org

Many of my fellow Christians make the mistake of reading genesis in only English, not knowing that words in the Hebrew language can have multiple meanings . YOM is still used in lebanese and Levantine Arabic and it is still used in multiple ways as well. This I know for a fact .

Why can't we all just take the position of who cares!!! Is it really that important???

I dont personally how it could possibly not matter to a believer whether his book of Divine Truth was riddled with
matters which are not factually correct.

Is it not so blatantly there to see? Someone here said I am blind, but he can see.

I dont think so.

Because the how questions are not important, we don't know really whether they are factually correct or not, or maybe it was never their intention to provide scientific information but rather make a theological point, we just don't have all the facts concerning the matter and why spend so much energy on something that is of little consequence anyway? These are not details which are essential to having a loving relationship with the creator of everything, these are the little details which just get in the way of that, it's like the Pharisees quibbling over what exactly was written and how to follow that to the letter and ignoring what it was actually trying to say. The Bible may or may not be riddled with scientific inaccuracies, depending on who's interpretation you use, for me there are no inaccuracies as it was never meant to explain scientific principles.

Reading through I think the micro\macro thing is important.People who accept evolution seem to gloss over this and most every creationists hammers them about it,the evolutionist just ignores it for some reason but evolution teaches that dinosaurs evolved into birds and yet there is no evidence to prove,show or demonstrate and know life evolves like this,this is macro evolution and without evidence for macro all you have is assumption and faith life evolves and must assume because micro is true it leads to life evolving without really knowing and it is a big leap of faith to assume because there are variations in reproduction it leads to dinosaurs evolving into birds.

I go on evidence for what I accept is true for everything I accept as truth and so no matter how smart you might be scientifically if you cannot demonstrate with evidence life evolves without just declaring it does,then I will never be convinced of what you are declaring no matter what you say,evidence can prove it if it is true and then I will accept it,but not until you can show us life evolves like you teach it does.

It requires alot less faith to just believe the bible that God created the life in this world to produce after its kind because the evidence is around for all to see it is a fact.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Audie wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

bippy123 wrote:

neo-x wrote:Sometimes I really wish I could go back to the days when I was a YEC, everything made so much sense and was much simpler.

Neo why does it have to be YEC my friend or evolution ?
Why not explore old earth creationism or ID

Remember in genesis it says that God created the universe in 6 YOMS. YOM in Hebrew can mean either literal day or indefinite time period

http://www.oldearth.org

Many of my fellow Christians make the mistake of reading genesis in only English, not knowing that words in the Hebrew language can have multiple meanings . YOM is still used in lebanese and Levantine Arabic and it is still used in multiple ways as well. This I know for a fact .

Why can't we all just take the position of who cares!!! Is it really that important???

I dont personally how it could possibly not matter to a believer whether his book of Divine Truth was riddled with
matters which are not factually correct.

Is it not so blatantly there to see? Someone here said I am blind, but he can see.

I dont think so.

Because the how questions are not important, we don't know really whether they are factually correct or not, or maybe it was never their intention to provide scientific information but rather make a theological point, we just don't have all the facts concerning the matter and why spend so much energy on something that is of little consequence anyway? These are not details which are essential to having a loving relationship with the creator of everything, these are the little details which just get in the way of that, it's like the Pharisees quibbling over what exactly was written and how to follow that to the letter and ignoring what it was actually trying to say. The Bible may or may not be riddled with scientific inaccuracies, depending on who's interpretation you use, for me there are no inaccuracies as it was never meant to explain scientific principles.

So... you get a story like the flood, which is said to have been verified by Jesus.

You are not really using the SEDI argument, in bold above, are you? (same evidence different interpretaion)


Its integral to the OT story. Its a major event, the biggest single one in earth history, if true.

When it is pointed out that it is simply a story, that no such event took place,
that is quibbling? its not "science vs religion". Neither in the non existence of Atlantis and Mu.

Try this...

You are on trial for you life in some third world country. Your defense introduces the evidence that shows the prosecution case rests on your having been in the hotel on the night in question. The hotel had not been built yet, nor were you in the country at the time.

"Quibbling pharises", the judge says. Seriously?

abelcainsbrother wrote:Reading through I think the micro\macro thing is important.People who accept evolution seem to gloss over this and most every creationists hammers them about it,the evolutionist just ignores it for some reason but evolution teaches that dinosaurs evolved into birds and yet there is no evidence to prove,show or demonstrate and know life evolves like this,this is macro evolution and without evidence for macro all you have is assumption and faith life evolves and must assume because micro is true it leads to life evolving without really knowing and it is a big leap of faith to assume because there are variations in reproduction it leads to dinosaurs evolving into birds.

I go on evidence for what I accept is true for everything I accept as truth and so no matter how smart you might be scientifically if you cannot demonstrate with evidence life evolves without just declaring it does,then I will never be convinced of what you are declaring no matter what you say,evidence can prove it if it is true and then I will accept it,but not until you can show us life evolves like you teach it does.

It requires alot less faith to just believe the bible that God created the life in this world to produce after its kind because the evidence is around for all to see it is a fact.

You honestly think that biologists the world over would simply gloss over a glaring error in the central theory in biology? You are certainly in no position to know that, nor to thus heap calumny on people you dont know, at all.

Micro and macro is a false issue. There is no line between them. Its like miceo and macro money. No "creationist" trying to "hammer" anyone wit it has any luck for that simple reason. They cannot identify the line, nor explain how it would work. Its just blather.

Regarding dinosaurs and birds, you statement if factually untrue, but I will give you credit for saying it from ignorance rather then intent to deceive.

It may be that you go on evidence, but you clearly have very little evidence to go on.

When I said you with science are like me with football, I meant it. Its true.


Absent any decent background in the subject, one is left to jump to facile conclusions,
unless, that is, it occurs to them that they are ignorant and should reserve judgement.

Jumping to conclusions is usually not considered very satisfactory.

Audie wrote:So... you get a story like the flood, which is said to have been verified by Jesus.

So was the flood local or global? I think it was local. But the details of the flood are unimportant, the reason why there was a flood is much more important.

You are not really using the SEDI argument, in bold above, are you? (same evidence different interpretaion)

?? Not sure what you are trying to say here.

Its integral to the OT story. Its a major event, the biggest single one in earth history, if true.

When it is pointed out that it is simply a story, that no such event took place,
that is quibbling? its not "science vs religion". Neither in the non existence of Atlantis and Mu.

It is quibbling, it may have been local (which there is a ton of evidence for) but these are the details of the event which are of little importance, the important parts you have missed completely just like the Pharisees.

Try this...

You are on trial for you life in some third world country. Your defense introduces the evidence that shows the prosecution case rests on your having been in the hotel on the night in question. The hotel had not been built yet, nor were you in the country at the time.

"Quibbling pharises", the judge says. Seriously?

This is a false dichotomy (dilemma) and a false analogy, The hotel exists, what is in question is how big the hotel was, was it 3 floors or 10 floors tall, but the information of how tall it was is irrelevant to the fact of why the person stayed in the hotel.

Audie wrote:
Micro and macro is a false issue. There is no line between them. Its like miceo and macro money. No "creationist" trying to "hammer" anyone wit it has any luck for that simple reason. They cannot identify the line, nor explain how it would work. Its just blather.

It's not a false issue Audie. While there may not be a distinct line, there is a difference. Even to evolutionists.

In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.

Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species. It can also apply to changes within species that are not genetic.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
Micro and macro is a false issue. There is no line between them. Its like miceo and macro money. No "creationist" trying to "hammer" anyone wit it has any luck for that simple reason. They cannot identify the line, nor explain how it would work. Its just blather.

It's not a false issue Audie. While there may not be a distinct line, there is a difference. Even to evolutionists.

In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.

Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species. It can also apply to changes within species that are not genetic.

Well then Macro evolution is observable, ring species are an example.

Seriously though, what is considered a species then, when they can no longer mate are they now a seperate species?

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
Micro and macro is a false issue. There is no line between them. Its like miceo and macro money. No "creationist" trying to "hammer" anyone wit it has any luck for that simple reason. They cannot identify the line, nor explain how it would work. Its just blather.

It's not a false issue Audie. While there may not be a distinct line, there is a difference. Even to evolutionists.

In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.

Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species. It can also apply to changes within species that are not genetic.

Well then Macro evolution is observable, ring species are an example.

Seriously though, what is considered a species then, when they can no longer mate are they now a seperate species?

Daniel I'm gonna go way out on a limb with this...

Since the distinction I posted above, came from an evolution site, I'm gonna have to say that they'd probably agree with you.

My point in posting that was not to say that definition is true, or even what's agreed upon. My point was just to show miss smarty pants that even evolutionists make a distinction between micro and macro. It's not just evil, deluded creationists.