Evidence for God from Science

crochet1949 wrote:To Me, 'transitional form' indicates that animals can change from one distinct kind to another distinctly Different kind -- even though it supposedly takes millions of years to do such. And I simply do Not agree that That is possible. Because I DO believe that Scripture tells us God did indeed create the animal world exactly as it says He did. Which means that Nothing crosses any boundaries. Because reproduction takes place one generation at a time. The various animals that God created will naturally mate with other's of the same 'kind' and produce the next generation of 'whatever'.

Well, at least that's clear. However, your statement "reproduction takes place one generation at a time" doesn't add anything to the controversy, and certainly is not evidence to contradict evolution. Quite the reverse. Better to stick to just not believing it's possible, which is honest, and cannot be disproved.

So -- the world of the fossils that are found. Obviously they came from something / somewhere or they wouldn't exist. And then the 'experts' publish their findings and no one questions them because , after all, They have done years of studying and know what they are talking about. But Sometimes common sense needs to be applied.

And what does 'common sense' say about fossils, I wonder...

And there Are those who feel that when someone doesn't agree, that it's because they don't have a Proper understanding of the subject area. A Lot of times we Do understand the subject area but simply do Not agree.

Possibly, but by bringing in weird reasoning such as "reproduction takes place one generation at a time" as an explanation of why evolution cannot occur you very much give the impression that you don't understand.

And it will always boil down to -- is Genesis 1:1 credible. "In the beginning ... God...created...' OR did 'things' simply manage to 'get together' without Any help and this earth and the universe managed to 'happen' and thus, 'here we are, folks'.

That's not a fair description of evolution, so your alternatives are meaningless. That's what I mean by it being important to recognise what it is you reject. Otherwise you're just making up a contradictory point that is not held by the people whose views you claim not to agree with. This is a classic "Aunt Sally" argument.

We have all these animals and we have human beings. Lots of people Don't like the idea of being responsible to a 'higher power'.

Two true statements, wholly unrelated to each other, or to creationism, or to evolutionism.

Inauguration Day events are going to start soon. Depending on what time zone a person is in. We can all be adults and welcome in our new President Donald Trump.

Best of luck!

Reproduction happening one generation at a time -- meaning that development of said animal or human has the DNA of their parents. Everything needs to be working properly or the animal or person will either have problems or die. If a two-headed animal or human is born -- Siamese twins -- that is a deformity - not a new form of human or animal beginning. We inherit height, hair color, eye color from our parents / grandparents or aunt, uncle. People might have DNA for an Indian group that they didn't know about. So - to the surprise of everyone, they look like great, great Grandfather instead of their immediate family. But they are still human beings. They will Not gradually develop characteristics that are Not human.

To My understanding -- evolution says that tiny mutations -- over millions of years -- Can amount to changes that accumulate to start another 'form'. I don't think any of that can be proved.

Fossils -- what Caused the fossils -- how did the animal / person Die? An explosion? drowning? earthquake? flood waters.

Well -- did a 'higher power' create or Didn't He.

crochet1949 wrote:Reproduction happening one generation at a time -- meaning that development of said animal or human has the DNA of their parents.Everything needs to be working properly or the animal or person will either have problems or die. If a two-headed animal or human is born -- Siamese twins -- that is a deformity - not a new form of human or animal beginning. We inherit height, hair color, eye color from our parents / grandparents or aunt, uncle. People might have DNA for an Indian group that they didn't know about. So - to the surprise of everyone, they look like great, great Grandfather instead of their immediate family. But they are still human beings. They will Not gradually develop characteristics that are Not human.

No. This illustrates perfectly what I was saying. Without any understanding of how evolution works, you have concocted a vague generalisation with which you disagree, and imagine this is a refutation. As I said before, better just to stick to "I don't think that happened" than to attempt to explain why rationally.

To My understanding -- evolution says that tiny mutations -- over millions of years -- Can amount to changes that accumulate to start another 'form'. I don't think any of that can be proved.

Proved? Who said anything about proof? Scientists demonstrate, provide evidence for, produce models that accurately mimic, they don't prove. You have avoided falling into this trap before...

Fossils -- what Caused the fossils -- how did the animal / person Die? An explosion? drowning? earthquake? flood waters.

If you had any interest in how fossils are formed, you could very easily find out in Wikipedia. But you don't really, do you? It is easier to reject things you don't understand than to explain why and where you think a clear exposition is incorrect, so you wander off into these whimsical rhetorical ellipses, presumably hoping they will pass for some kind of rational contradiction. But they don't.

Well -- did a 'higher power' create or Didn't He.

Not a sensible question. It depends what you mean by 'higher', 'power' and 'create'.

hughfarey wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:Reproduction happening one generation at a time -- meaning that development of said animal or human has the DNA of their parents.Everything needs to be working properly or the animal or person will either have problems or die. If a two-headed animal or human is born -- Siamese twins -- that is a deformity - not a new form of human or animal beginning. We inherit height, hair color, eye color from our parents / grandparents or aunt, uncle. People might have DNA for an Indian group that they didn't know about. So - to the surprise of everyone, they look like great, great Grandfather instead of their immediate family. But they are still human beings. They will Not gradually develop characteristics that are Not human.

No. This illustrates perfectly what I was saying. Without any understanding of how evolution works, you have concocted a vague generalisation with which you disagree, and imagine this is a refutation. As I said before, better just to stick to "I don't think that happened" than to attempt to explain why rationally.

To My understanding -- evolution says that tiny mutations -- over millions of years -- Can amount to changes that accumulate to start another 'form'. I don't think any of that can be proved.

Proved? Who said anything about proof? Scientists demonstrate, provide evidence for, produce models that accurately mimic, they don't prove. You have avoided falling into this trap before...

Fossils -- what Caused the fossils -- how did the animal / person Die? An explosion? drowning? earthquake? flood waters.

If you had any interest in how fossils are formed, you could very easily find out in Wikipedia. But you don't really, do you? It is easier to reject things you don't understand than to explain why and where you think a clear exposition is incorrect, so you wander off into these whimsical rhetorical ellipses, presumably hoping they will pass for some kind of rational contradiction. But they don't.

Well -- did a 'higher power' create or Didn't He.

Not a sensible question. It depends what you mean by 'higher', 'power' and 'create'.

I'm asking questions -- discussing -- you're beginning to sound like Audie.

The 'higher power' being God and 'create' -- making from nothing except that which God created Himself. Or speaking into existence. Genesis 1.

He Spoke
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ml9LWuMwBk

crochet1949 wrote:I'm asking questions -- discussing -- you're beginning to sound like Audie. The 'higher power' being God and 'create' -- making from nothing except that which God created Himself. Or speaking into existence. Genesis 1.

Well, Audie likes to get definitions clear, like me. We don't want to fall into the trap we so often accuse others of - refuting arguments that our opponents don't hold. My questions were very relevant however, as they were attempts to understand what we all, in our different ways, mean by God. The words 'higher power' don't actually mean very much in this context, do they? I get 'higher power' from my car by pressing the accelerator, or from my sound-system by turning up the volume. You've chosen a form of words which sound mystically impressive, but I wonder if you really understand what you mean by them. That's why I asked. I'm not sure you do, and I'm not sure you really want to.

But yes, as far as it goes, and I don't think any atheist would disagree with us, I think the universe is the result of much more impressive processes than I am capable of. Processes which cover the entire universe, and encompass all the energy in it, and define how the energy is transferred, and manage the transference. The 'laws of physics' for short (although in themselves they are only descriptive, not executive). That's definitely a 'higher power'.

And then there's 'create'. And yes, as far as it goes, and many atheists would agree with us, I think the universe arose from an immaterial state we have been calling 'nothing' for convenience, as an act of spontaneous creation. However I don't think that elephants or mosquitoes were created from nothing in a sudden moment. I think these were the result of the single act of spontaneous creation about 15 billion years ago. If the results of creation are also creation, then Yes, all things were 'created', but if not, then No, they weren't.

So you see, the answer to what you posed as a fairly simple question: "Did a 'higher power' create or Didn't He," could easily be answered Yes by the most militant atheist, and No by the most convinced Christian, with equal sincerity. It is thus either unanswerable or meaningless, depending on interpretation, which is why I inquired.

hughfarey wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:I'm asking questions -- discussing -- you're beginning to sound like Audie. The 'higher power' being God and 'create' -- making from nothing except that which God created Himself. Or speaking into existence. Genesis 1.

Well, Audie likes to get definitions clear, like me. We don't want to fall into the trap we so often accuse others of - refuting arguments that our opponents don't hold. My questions were very relevant however, as they were attempts to understand what we all, in our different ways, mean by God. The words 'higher power' don't actually mean very much in this context, do they? I get 'higher power' from my car by pressing the accelerator, or from my sound-system by turning up the volume. You've chosen a form of words which sound mystically impressive, but I wonder if you really understand what you mean by them. That's why I asked. I'm not sure you do, and I'm not sure you really want to.

But yes, as far as it goes, and I don't think any atheist would disagree with us, I think the universe is the result of much more impressive processes than I am capable of. Processes which cover the entire universe, and encompass all the energy in it, and define how the energy is transferred, and manage the transference. The 'laws of physics' for short (although in themselves they are only descriptive, not executive). That's definitely a 'higher power'.

And then there's 'create'. And yes, as far as it goes, and many atheists would agree with us, I think the universe arose from an immaterial state we have been calling 'nothing' for convenience, as an act of spontaneous creation. However I don't think that elephants or mosquitoes were created from nothing in a sudden moment. I think these were the result of the single act of spontaneous creation about 15 billion years ago. If the results of creation are also creation, then Yes, all things were 'created', but if not, then No, they weren't.

So you see, the answer to what you posed as a fairly simple question: "Did a 'higher power' create or Didn't He," could easily be answered Yes by the most militant atheist, and No by the most convinced Christian, with equal sincerity. It is thus either unanswerable or meaningless, depending on interpretation, which is why I inquired.

I felt the context was fairly obvious.

crochet1949 wrote:I felt the context was fairly obvious.

Of course you did, because you felt it that way yourself, and quite strongly. But you have seen how the concept of 'creation' has been discussed here, and how the different participants have interpreted it in different ways. Your 'yes-or-no' question could not be answered. If I said 'yes', then you might suppose I accepted a literal interpretation of Genesis, with fruit-trees arriving on Earth before fish, which I think completely wrong, but if I said 'no', then I might be thought of as denying the creative power of God to do anything, which I also think completely wrong. Common sense, as so often in these cases, is either not common or not sense...

I Do believe that I've shared Genesis -- God's creation process -- letting Scripture speak for itself.

"A single act of spontaneous creation about 15 billion years ago." Then Who set that 'single act of spontaneous creation' in motion. And What allowed the single-cell to start multiplying. And Some people would call That the 'Big Bang' theory.

Scripture / God's Word IS God telling people / mankind / us -- how He did Create everything in that 6 24-hr day period of time. And God does Not lie -- so -- just maybe creation / this universe / world came into existence just as He's telling us He did.

Common sense is that which allows a person to tell if what they hear / read actually does make sense.