Evidence for God from Science

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 [...]

"Gloss over" and "ignore"?

OK, start with simple stuff: What problem does anyone have with science's 150+ years of evidential support for the common descent hypothesis, viz., organizing present day living organisms by a panoply of biological traits forms only one reasonable nested hierarchy?

This hierarchy's implication dwarfs the macro definition quibbling anyone here has.

Morny wrote:

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 [...]

"Gloss over" and "ignore"?

OK, start with simple stuff: What problem does anyone have with science's 150+ years of evidential support for the common descent hypothesis, viz., organizing present day living organisms by a panoply of biological traits forms only one reasonable nested hierarchy?

This hierarchy's implication dwarfs the macro definition quibbling anyone here has.

So you say. But answer me this:

Do you, do I, does anyone know
How oats, green beans, and barley grow?:D

Audie doesn't seem to like nuances - well, until it suits her. She likes a world that is either black or white, even if she appears to embrace that which is only gray. We all occasionally use figures of speech, metaphor and symbolic references. And yet she dismisses these things are impossible for the Bible? I don't get it!

Audie wrote:

Morny wrote:

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 [...]

"Gloss over" and "ignore"?

OK, start with simple stuff: What problem does anyone have with science's 150+ years of evidential support for the common descent hypothesis, viz., organizing present day living organisms by a panoply of biological traits forms only one reasonable nested hierarchy?

This hierarchy's implication dwarfs the macro definition quibbling anyone here has.

So you say. But answer me this:

Do you, do I, does anyone know
How oats, green beans, and barley grow?:D

I disagree they built that whole bit of evidence you speak of based on the belief life evolves for which there is no evidence that can demonstrate it can.You might give them the benefit of the doubt but even if they have proved all life is related and I do not believe it because I'd be trusting them based on what they say that in Noway is evidence life evolves and I think for 150 years they have went on a evolution hunting expedition for nothing really and they have examined the evidence in the earth from the wrong perspective because all the evidence in the earth proves is that most life that has lived has died and went extinct and this is evidence for the former world that existed on this earth that perished before this world was created.Yes trilobites,dinosaurs,primates,wooly mammoth,sabre tooth tigers,etc all lived in the former world that perished yet this evidence has been looked at as if life evolves,the wrong perspective.

Hod does barley grow,oats,green beans grow? Photosynthesis? Is this evidence life evolves? Because I don't think anybody doubts the evidence for photosynthesis but evolution does not have this kind of evidence.

Philip wrote:Audie doesn't seem to like nuances - well, until it suits her. She likes a world that is either black or white, even if she appears to embrace that which is only gray. We all occasionally use figures of speech, metaphor and symbolic references. And yet she dismisses these things are impossible for the Bible? I don't get it!

All you needed was the last three lines for more truth and less calumny.

abelcainsbrother wrote:I disagree they built that whole bit of evidence you speak of based on the belief life evolves for which there is no evidence that can demonstrate it can.You might give them the benefit of the doubt but even if they have proved all life is related and I do not believe it because I'd be trusting them based on what they say that in Noway is evidence life evolves and I think for 150 years they have went on a evolution hunting expedition for nothing really and they have examined the evidence in the earth from the wrong perspective because all the evidence in the earth proves is that most life that has lived has died and went extinct and this is evidence for the former world that existed on this earth that perished before this world was created.Yes trilobites,dinosaurs,primates,wooly mammoth,sabre tooth tigers,etc all lived in the former world that perished yet this evidence has been looked at as if life evolves,the wrong perspective.

Huh? I asked for anyone to point out why the 150+ years old observed pattern of the nested hierarchy wouldn't support evolution's bedrock hypothesis of common descent.

The analysis doesn't require fossils or DNA, doesn't require trust, and doesn't have anything to do with evidence for other parts of evolution like natural selection, genetic drift, or (gasp!) macro-evolution.

High school freshman biology, folks.

Morny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I disagree they built that whole bit of evidence you speak of based on the belief life evolves for which there is no evidence that can demonstrate it can.You might give them the benefit of the doubt but even if they have proved all life is related and I do not believe it because I'd be trusting them based on what they say that in Noway is evidence life evolves and I think for 150 years they have went on a evolution hunting expedition for nothing really and they have examined the evidence in the earth from the wrong perspective because all the evidence in the earth proves is that most life that has lived has died and went extinct and this is evidence for the former world that existed on this earth that perished before this world was created.Yes trilobites,dinosaurs,primates,wooly mammoth,sabre tooth tigers,etc all lived in the former world that perished yet this evidence has been looked at as if life evolves,the wrong perspective.

Huh? I asked for anyone to point out why the 150+ years old observed pattern of the nested hierarchy wouldn't support evolution's bedrock hypothesis of common descent.

The analysis doesn't require fossils or DNA, doesn't require trust, and doesn't have anything to do with evidence for other parts of evolution like natural selection, genetic drift, or (gasp!) macro-evolution.

High school freshman biology, folks.

You wont find anyone with the background knowledge to do anything more than to invent things about
how "evos" are intellectually dishonest at best, or agents of Satan.

A person who knows his stuff wont even attempt it.

Explain how non-life became life, and before that (LONG before that!), kindly explain how a universe came from nothingness into being with immensely sophisticated and complex governing laws present from its very beginning. THEN I'll listen to so-called knowledgeable opinions as to how evolution could be true. You've got a FAR bigger problems if you hang atheism's or agnosticism's validation on the supposed proofs of evolution. Not to mention you're arguing for processes that supposedly occurred over 10 billion years after what you ultimately REALLY need to be explaining. But you can't do that, so you want to use the smokescreen evidences of evolutionary arguments. And if you believe that such things occurred without a cause or God (a universe happens and non-life comes into existence, BY THEMSELVES), then you guys have so much faith - FAR more than any Christian ever had or has! It's just that your faith is rooted in the fantasy that nothingness can become something - and a quite complex and sophisticated something, instantly and by itself.

Truly, miracle believers doesn't ever begin to describe Morny and Audie!

Lets look at it this way. People have long tended to blame god's wrath for natural disasters; earthquakes, plague, drought, tsunami, volcano, flood.

The difference here is that Noah was told by God long before the flood happened that it would happen. It was not post flood that it was attributed to God it was pre flood.

IF there is a seed of reality to the flood story, it got fluffed up till nothing of the original is left but maybe the word water.

Got any actual proof that it was fluffed up other than just opinion?

People like you can see that world wide, as is clearly described, didnt happen.

Actually no, I think the world wide interpretation is quite possible. Maybe we are just reading the evidence wrong.

To make the message of the story be that god send a flood to punish is to regress to stone age thinking.

So there should be no punishment for doing crimes? Do you think we should let rapists, murderers, paedophiles back out onto the street where they can continue to do what they do?

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Lets look at it this way. People have long tended to blame god's wrath for natural disasters; earthquakes, plague, drought, tsunami, volcano, flood.

The difference here is that Noah was told by God long before the flood happened that it would happen. It was not post flood that it was attributed to God it was pre flood.

IF there is a seed of reality to the flood story, it got fluffed up till nothing of the original is left but maybe the word water.

Got any actual proof that it was fluffed up other than just opinion?

People like you can see that world wide, as is clearly described, didnt happen.

Actually no, I think the world wide interpretation is quite possible. Maybe we are just reading the evidence wrong.

To make the message of the story be that god send a flood to punish is to regress to stone age thinking.

So there should be no punishment for doing crimes? Do you think we should let rapists, murderers, paedophiles back out onto the street where they can continue to do what they do?

Why would the supposed warning be credible, when so much of the rest isnt?
If its not fluffed up, the "Noah" really lived 900 years? Titanium carbide teeth most likely.

And really world wide? That is the fluffed up part I was referring to Of course it can be disproved.
Surely you are not really asking that?

I dont see the purpose of your rhetorical "question" at the end there. I will tho say that as one who has
experienced sexual assault Im not cool with it being taken lightly.

Of course, you were not merely being rhetorical but veeringway of topic, making it about me, and being utterly unresponsive entirely to my observation that the belief that tornadoes, earthquakes, plagues etc are "god's wrath" is so totally stone age.

Except what, if its an outlandish bible story?

Why would the supposed warning be credible, when so much of the rest isnt?

Ahh the rest is credible?

If its not fluffed up, the "Noah" really lived 900 years? Titanium carbide teeth most likely.

900 what? Years based on the gregorian calander, when the gregorian calander didn't exist, maybe it was 900 new moons, who actually knows, again this is down to interpretation.

And really world wide? That is the fluffed up part I was referring to Of course it can be disproved.

Depends on what evidence is available, like with evolution it is a historical science and there may be evidence we have not uncovered or we may have interpreted the current evidence wrongly, I am not saying it is a certainty that it happened, I am just saying that it is feasible and not as outlandish as you make it, there is more than enough water on the surface and underneath the surface to cause a global flood. I doubt that it was global, but you just never know.

I dont see the purpose of your rhetorical "question" at the end there. I will tho say that as one who has
experienced sexual assault Im not cool with it being taken lightly.

I am sorry to hear that has happened to you. Neither does God take his judgements lightly, if he decided to kill off a heap of people, I would imagine that he had no other choice, they would have been beyond redemption. Just like we sentence people to life in prison, because they are beyond redemption.

Of course, you were not merely being rhetorical but veeringway of topic, making it about me, and being utterly unresponsive entirely to my observation that the belief that tornadoes, earthquakes, plagues etc are "god's wrath" is so totally stone age.

I never made it about you, you made it about you (well at least it was never intentional), and again I repeat unlike your examples, Noah told the people before the flood that they should repent and that they would be wiped out, Noah built the ark before the flood and not after. There are major differences between your examples of post attribution and the Biblical example of pre attribution. Everything I have said was refuting what you said and I quote

To make the message of the story be that god send a flood to punish is to regress to stone age thinking.

, basically you are saying that God punishing people is stone age thinking, I don't see a problem with God punishing people who are bad, he even warned them before it would happen but they mocked Noah and his family and remained unrepentant.

The reality is Audie you are looking through a lens that simply does not allow you to 'see' what a follower of Christ see's.
So in a world of academia, progressive thinking, intellectual reasoning the bridge has been shortened so much so that a Christian's spiritual integrity to place trust in God's actions and judgments digresses us to 'Stone Age thinking'.
You know we have heard it all before, it's not a new concept. Christians have been ridiculed for foolish thinking long before you or I graced this earth, and it will continue long after.
But the world cannot know what is found in the spirit. It is impossible. So your assertions are not surprising.
Your continual questioning on the intellectual level and honesty of those holding to God's word is testament to how much knowledge people can believe they hold but without the knowledge of the spiritual, mans arrogance will continue to seperate too many from knowledge, humilty and wisdom which can only come through accessing all avenues of the wisdom that has been granted to all of us.
Intellectual wisdom, emotional wisdom, and spiritual wisdom. Even then we still stumble, but it is the closest anyone can come in the well meaning, well rounded pursuit of knowledge.
Mind, body and spirit.
One can access knowledge and wisdom from all three without jeopardising the integrity of the other.
Like so much in life, balance is the key.

Audie wrote:

Morny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I disagree they built that whole bit of evidence you speak of based on the belief life evolves for which there is no evidence that can demonstrate it can.You might give them the benefit of the doubt but even if they have proved all life is related and I do not believe it because I'd be trusting them based on what they say that in Noway is evidence life evolves and I think for 150 years they have went on a evolution hunting expedition for nothing really and they have examined the evidence in the earth from the wrong perspective because all the evidence in the earth proves is that most life that has lived has died and went extinct and this is evidence for the former world that existed on this earth that perished before this world was created.Yes trilobites,dinosaurs,primates,wooly mammoth,sabre tooth tigers,etc all lived in the former world that perished yet this evidence has been looked at as if life evolves,the wrong perspective.

Huh? I asked for anyone to point out why the 150+ years old observed pattern of the nested hierarchy wouldn't support evolution's bedrock hypothesis of common descent.

The analysis doesn't require fossils or DNA, doesn't require trust, and doesn't have anything to do with evidence for other parts of evolution like natural selection, genetic drift, or (gasp!) macro-evolution.

High school freshman biology, folks.

You wont find anyone with the background knowledge to do anything more than to invent things about
how "evos" are intellectually dishonest at best, or agents of Satan.

A person who knows his stuff wont even attempt it.

Whole societies have been indoctrinated before and yet you somehow believe it can't happen again.How would you know if you've been indoctrinated?This is a very important question to ask yourself.Even if you don't believe in Satan who is the father of lies like Christians do,you cannot deny history and how many times man has been indoctrinated by false teachings in that society.sincerity does not matter much because the indoctrinators appeared sincere and yet were wrong.I'd like to know how you can trust man so much because I cannot do it,this is why I look for evidence to guide me on what is true,a lie,or a theory.Also I think it is intellectual dishonesty to teach society life evolves without evidence life evolves and to keep pushing this as truth while continuing to build evidence around it without even knowing if life truly evolves, then deny the evidence for biblical global floods.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

Morny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I disagree they built that whole bit of evidence you speak of based on the belief life evolves for which there is no evidence that can demonstrate it can.You might give them the benefit of the doubt but even if they have proved all life is related and I do not believe it because I'd be trusting them based on what they say that in Noway is evidence life evolves and I think for 150 years they have went on a evolution hunting expedition for nothing really and they have examined the evidence in the earth from the wrong perspective because all the evidence in the earth proves is that most life that has lived has died and went extinct and this is evidence for the former world that existed on this earth that perished before this world was created.Yes trilobites,dinosaurs,primates,wooly mammoth,sabre tooth tigers,etc all lived in the former world that perished yet this evidence has been looked at as if life evolves,the wrong perspective.

Huh? I asked for anyone to point out why the 150+ years old observed pattern of the nested hierarchy wouldn't support evolution's bedrock hypothesis of common descent.

The analysis doesn't require fossils or DNA, doesn't require trust, and doesn't have anything to do with evidence for other parts of evolution like natural selection, genetic drift, or (gasp!) macro-evolution.

High school freshman biology, folks.

You wont find anyone with the background knowledge to do anything more than to invent things about
how "evos" are intellectually dishonest at best, or agents of Satan.

A person who knows his stuff wont even attempt it.

Whole societies have been indoctrinated before and yet you somehow believe it can't happen again.How would you know if you've been indoctrinated?This is a very important question to ask yourself.Even if you don't believe in Satan who is the father of lies like Christians do,you cannot deny history and how many times man has been indoctrinated by false teachings in that society.sincerity does not matter much because the indoctrinators appeared sincere and yet were wrong.I'd like to know how you can trust man so much because I cannot do it,this is why I look for evidence to guide me on what is true,a lie,or a theory.

The problem is ACB is that the Bible just doesn't say one way or the other, saying it does is just being dishonest.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

Morny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I disagree they built that whole bit of evidence you speak of based on the belief life evolves for which there is no evidence that can demonstrate it can.You might give them the benefit of the doubt but even if they have proved all life is related and I do not believe it because I'd be trusting them based on what they say that in Noway is evidence life evolves and I think for 150 years they have went on a evolution hunting expedition for nothing really and they have examined the evidence in the earth from the wrong perspective because all the evidence in the earth proves is that most life that has lived has died and went extinct and this is evidence for the former world that existed on this earth that perished before this world was created.Yes trilobites,dinosaurs,primates,wooly mammoth,sabre tooth tigers,etc all lived in the former world that perished yet this evidence has been looked at as if life evolves,the wrong perspective.

Huh? I asked for anyone to point out why the 150+ years old observed pattern of the nested hierarchy wouldn't support evolution's bedrock hypothesis of common descent.

The analysis doesn't require fossils or DNA, doesn't require trust, and doesn't have anything to do with evidence for other parts of evolution like natural selection, genetic drift, or (gasp!) macro-evolution.

High school freshman biology, folks.

You wont find anyone with the background knowledge to do anything more than to invent things about
how "evos" are intellectually dishonest at best, or agents of Satan.

A person who knows his stuff wont even attempt it.

Whole societies have been indoctrinated before and yet you somehow believe it can't happen again.How would you know if you've been indoctrinated?This is a very important question to ask yourself.Even if you don't believe in Satan who is the father of lies like Christians do,you cannot deny history and how many times man has been indoctrinated by false teachings in that society.sincerity does not matter much because the indoctrinators appeared sincere and yet were wrong.I'd like to know how you can trust man so much because I cannot do it,this is why I look for evidence to guide me on what is true,a lie,or a theory.

The problem is ACB is that the Bible just doesn't say one way or the other, saying it does is just being dishonest.

That is irrelevant to my point.I'm talking about societies that have been indoctrinated many times before I'm not really arguing the bible right now,just making a point about indoctrination of societies of the past and why I don't trust what man says is true especially without evidence.