Evidence for God from Science

If you were walking along a desert plateau and stumbled upon a wristwatch what would you assume to be the origin of that watch?

Since it's an artifact, not a natural object, I would say it was designed, rather than created.

Would you guess that after billions and billions of years the sand was melted into a perfectly formed face, stray minerals then gathered to form metal parts and a dead animal's skin dried up and formed a band around it? Or, would you say someone designed and created it?

We know artifacts are designed. That, I assume, is why you chose a watch, instead of a natural object. If you used a natural object, no one would see design in it.

But what happens when we see DNA strands a thousand times more intricate than that watch?

Good question. Simple things like watches are efficiently designed. But things like DNA are more efficiently produced by evolutionary processes. Engineers are now employing genetic algorithms that mimic evolution, to solve problems that resist design.

It appears that God knew what He was doing, after all.

Yehren wrote:

If you were walking along a desert plateau and stumbled upon a wristwatch what would you assume to be the origin of that watch?

Since it's an artifact, not a natural object, I would say it was designed, rather than created.

Would you guess that after billions and billions of years the sand was melted into a perfectly formed face, stray minerals then gathered to form metal parts and a dead animal's skin dried up and formed a band around it? Or, would you say someone designed and created it?

We know artifacts are designed. That, I assume, is why you chose a watch, instead of a natural object. If you used a natural object, no one would see design in it.

But what happens when we see DNA strands a thousand times more intricate than that watch?

Good question. Simple things like watches are efficiently designed. But things like DNA are more efficiently produced by evolutionary processes. Engineers are now employing genetic algorithms that mimic evolution, to solve problems that resist design.

It appears that God knew what He was doing, after all.

exactly. the intricacy of the laws of the nature that science discovers does not disprove the existence of god, but rather describes the extremely complex method of his creation.

We know artifacts are designed. That, I assume, is why you chose a watch, instead of a natural object. If you used a natural object, no one would see design in it.

A better example might be an arrowhead.

exactly. the intricacy of the laws of the nature that science discovers does not disprove the existence of god, but rather describes the extremely complex method of his creation.

Understand that nothing in science is an attempt to disprove God. Nor can it disprove God, even hypothetically.

All it says is that if we find something clearly designed, like a watch or an arrowhead, it tells us that an intelligence designed it.

If we find a natural object, like a bird or a shell, we see that it is not designed, but rather was fashioned by nature.

If you are skeptical that nature might create itself, I'm with you on that one.

If we find a natural object, like a bird or a shell, we see that it is not designed, but rather was fashioned by nature.

Why not? Just assertions again?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

If we find a natural object, like a bird or a shell, we see that it is not designed, but rather was fashioned by nature.

Why not? Just assertions again?

You're the one making assertions.
Have you ever seen a creation event?

Yehren observes:
If we find a natural object, like a bird or a shell, we see that it is not designed, but rather was fashioned by nature.

Why not?

Experience. We know arrowheads are designed, and there is an entire science based on learning about primitive stone tools and how they were designed and used.

But we never see anything natural being designed.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

If we find a natural object, like a bird or a shell, we see that it is not designed, but rather was fashioned by nature.

Why not? Just assertions again?

You're the one making assertions.
Have you ever seen a creation event?

BGood, get over yourself. I've never made any statement about creation in here.

Experience. We know arrowheads are designed, and there is an entire science based on learning about primitive stone tools and how they were designed and used.

But we never see anything natural being designed.

Because we weren't there when it happenned, obviously-life, though, has all the hallmarks of design-they have what the arrowhead has, and then some.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:BGood, get over yourself. I've never made any statement about creation in here.

Good point, sorry.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

Experience. We know arrowheads are designed, and there is an entire science based on learning about primitive stone tools and how they were designed and used.
But we never see anything natural being designed.

Because we weren't there when it happenned, obviously-life, though, has all the hallmarks of design-they have what the arrowhead has, and then some.

Design can never achieve what iterative techniques can.
That is why man made artifacts improve over time, we learn from our mistakes.

Evolution is an ultimate form of iteration.
Nothing we create comes close to the complexity of a sugar molecule, at the quantum level, let alone a living being.

We can't create life on purpose, but chance can?

Design can never achieve what iterative techniques can.
That is why man made artifacts improve over time, we learn from our mistakes.

Evolution is an ultimate form of iteration.
Nothing we create comes close to the complexity of a sugar molecule, at the quantum level, let alone a living being.

I don't know if you were writing haikus, but I lost you...explain?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Because we weren't there when it happenned, obviously-life, though, has all the hallmarks of design-they have what the arrowhead has, and then some.

that is merely an assumption based on the idea that everything must be created directly. if you knew anything about creating anything, then you would think otherwise.

man-made objects are so much more clumsier and simpler than the things created naturally (see 'God'). the watch analogy, or your arrowhead analogy really don't work for your point well. both objects are known for what they are. we know that humans built both and so we can automatically assume that it is an object designed intelligently (or at least as far as we know). But there is no background for us to draw upon when looking at nature. it is what it is and there is no knowledge of anything else like it. If you cannot take simple observation as the work of god, then what can you take as evidence?

the method of creation is so much more powerful than the creation itself. we observe that in our reality, nothing pops into existence without a cause or without a past. creationists and IDer's always talk of creation, but never the methods of creation. the methods of creation are evolution, erosion, the fundamental forces of nature, and above all, time. everything has a cause and can be explained, but to understand the explanation, you require the capacity to understand its complexity. That is the reason for our science, for our religion, for learning, and for physical evolution; that we are able to advance in every way possible.

Yehren suggests:
Maybe you should define "transitional." There seem to be a great many number of them...

Really? Is that why you seem to be having problems naming even one?

I've discussed a good number of them here.

Yehren suggests:
I think a Christian evolutionist is more reliable (to a Muslim creationist)...But I suppose it depends on which one is more important to you.

No disrespect, but why do you believe your opinions and thoughts are of any consequence?

People may take them for what they are worth. Why do you believe your opinions and thoughts are of any consequence?

Yehren observes:
Again, I suppose it depends whether the Christian/Muslim or Evolution/Creationism issue is more important to you.

[quiote]Nope, doesn't depend on that at all. Sorry. [/quote]

I'm less inclined to take the opinions of your Muslim site than a Christian site. Creationism is certainly more compatible with Islam, but I'm not a Muslim.

that is merely an assumption based on the idea that everything must be created directly. if you knew anything about creating anything, then you would think otherwise.

Now you shall teach us all the logical fallacy of the non sequitor?

man-made objects are so much more clumsier and simpler than the things created naturally (see 'God'). the watch analogy, or your arrowhead analogy really don't work for your point well. both objects are known for what they are. we know that humans built both and so we can automatically assume that it is an object designed intelligently (or at least as far as we know). But there is no background for us to draw upon when looking at nature. it is what it is and there is no knowledge of anything else like it. If you cannot take simple observation as the work of god, then what can you take as evidence?

Our a priori knowledge is what we already know intelligence can do. It gives rise to specified complexityand it creates irreducibly complex system. So we can look at nature with some helpful information in hand.

the method of creation is so much more powerful than the creation itself. we observe that in our reality, nothing pops into existence without a cause or without a past. creationists and IDer's always talk of creation, but never the methods of creation. the methods of creation are evolution, erosion, the fundamental forces of nature, and above all, time. everything has a cause and can be explained, but to understand the explanation, you require the capacity to understand its complexity. That is the reason for our science, for our religion, for learning, and for physical evolution; that we are able to advance in every way possible.

Erosion does't create anything, the fundamental forces of natre don't create anything, and time doesn't create anything. And evolution doesn't create anything either.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Now you shall teach us all the logical fallacy of the non sequitor?

i'm just telling you not to dish out what you can't handle yourself.

Our a priori knowledge is what we already know intelligence can do. It gives rise to specified complexityand it creates irreducibly complex system. So we can look at nature with some helpful information in hand.

i read words but they meant nothing. we only know what we can do, not 'intelligence'. we can call ourselves intelligent, but that is only because we control the meaning of the word. are humans able to create irreducibly complex systems?

i'd like to hear your version of god.

Erosion does't create anything, the fundamental forces of natre don't create anything, and time doesn't create anything. And evolution doesn't create anything either.

they create diversity; thats all they have to.