Evidence for God from Science

Argh, you nabbed that before I changed my mind.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Believer wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Believer wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Science speculates that Christianity originated out of Israel. What is the evidence for this?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Besides the bible, you're bible was not printed 2000 years ago.

Obviously, and why do you not capitalize Bible? A book and/or a collection of books need to be capitalized. And by saying "you're bible", what do you subscribe to, what religion? Answers man, answers!

I'm talking about science.
Science requires evidence.

If science speculates that Christianity originated in Israel, what is the basis of this speculation. That is what my point is.

Notice I replied to your second quote, not the first . Missing the point again BGood ?

The quotes belong to one coherent idea. Being that science doesn't use only the bible as evidence for conclusions.

Still didn't answer my questions BGood, still waiting....

Believer wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Believer wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Believer wrote:


Obviously, and why do you not capitalize Bible? A book and/or a collection of books need to be capitalized. And by saying "you're bible", what do you subscribe to, what religion? Answers man, answers!

I'm talking about science.
Science requires evidence.

If science speculates that Christianity originated in Israel, what is the basis of this speculation. That is what my point is.

Notice I replied to your second quote, not the first . Missing the point again BGood ?

The quotes belong to one coherent idea. Being that science doesn't use only the bible as evidence for conclusions.

Still didn't answer my questions BGood, still waiting....

???
You're questions are a tangent, we were talking about what constitutes evidence in science. Why then do you ask my personal beleifs?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: If multiple disciplines and findings lead to a conclusion, it makes that conclusion stronger.

Perhaps this would be true to a certian extent if they all came to independant conclusions, but since Evolution is taught as Science it has only proclaimed itself with a loud voice to everyone.

Truth isn't determined by the number of people believing it.

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: If multiple disciplines and findings lead to a conclusion, it makes that conclusion stronger.

Perhaps this would be true to a certian extent if they all came to independant conclusions, but since Evolution is taught as Science it has only proclaimed itself with a loud voice to everyone.
Truth isn't determined by the number of people believing it.

How in the world can you with good conscience come to this conclusion?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Believer wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Believer wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: I'm talking about science.
Science requires evidence.

If science speculates that Christianity originated in Israel, what is the basis of this speculation. That is what my point is.

Notice I replied to your second quote, not the first . Missing the point again BGood ?

The quotes belong to one coherent idea. Being that science doesn't use only the bible as evidence for conclusions.

Still didn't answer my questions BGood, still waiting....

???
You're questions are a tangent, we were talking about what constitutes evidence in science. Why then do you ask my personal beleifs?

Nevermind .

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: If multiple disciplines and findings lead to a conclusion, it makes that conclusion stronger.

Perhaps this would be true to a certian extent if they all came to independant conclusions, but since Evolution is taught as Science it has only proclaimed itself with a loud voice to everyone.
Truth isn't determined by the number of people believing it.

How in the world can you with good conscience come to this conclusion?

Which one?

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: If multiple disciplines and findings lead to a conclusion, it makes that conclusion stronger.

Perhaps this would be true to a certian extent if they all came to independant conclusions, but since Evolution is taught as Science it has only proclaimed itself with a loud voice to everyone.
Truth isn't determined by the number of people believing it.

How in the world can you with good conscience come to this conclusion?

Which one?

Heh, I think what you're trying to say is that all of the disciplines which support evolution do so because evolution is assumed.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Heh, I think what you're trying to say is that all of the disciplines which support evolution do so because evolution is assumed.

To a certian extent yes. First I don't see how the disciplines support evolution. Secondly research that doesn't come to evolutionary conclusions is highly suspect within science, and hard to get seriously considered. Thirdly, just because I thought three points better than two, research differs very little in its presumptions and conclusions, but simply defer to a theory wihtout acutally testing it.

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Heh, I think what you're trying to say is that all of the disciplines which support evolution do so because evolution is assumed.

To a certian extent yes. First I don't see how the disciplines support evolution. Secondly research that doesn't come to evolutionary conclusions is highly suspect within science, and hard to get seriously considered. Thirdly, just because I thought three points better than two, research differs very little in its presumptions and conclusions, but simply defer to a theory wihtout acutally testing it.

Most of the research concerning evolution tests it. Anything which seems contrary will be seen even more critically due to the overwhelming evidence for evolution.

Chemistry shows how molecular behavior boils down to bonds. Complex chemical behaviour boils down to the shape of the chemical which effects these bonds.
So all molecular behaviour is self determined and given an initial set of chemicals the result is expected due to the laws of enthropy. Complexity is a result of this self organization.

Biochemistry - studies of this special class of chemicals, hydrocarbons, shows how proteins can take many forms and shapes, which helps to explain how biological forms take advantage of these chemicals.

Genetic studies lead one to the conclusion that all life is related.

Geology leads one to the conclusion that the Earth is very old.

Physics leads one to the conclusion that the Univers is very old.

Psychology and Game theory makes exelent predictions for how individuals react in a group. Giving theories for the origins of cooperation and cheating.

Physiology helps one understand the working of the human body. Problems such as prostate problems and hernias make more sence when the alteration of human physiology is considered.

Paleontology and fossils support that life has changed throughout time.

And Biology.

These conclusions were reached independanttly each with its own set of observations.

You guys make me giggle like a puppy.

Bgood wrote: Most of the research concerning evolution tests it. Anything which seems contrary will be seen even more critically due to the overwhelming evidence for evolution.

Chemistry shows how molecular behavior boils down to bonds. Complex chemical behaviour boils down to the shape of the chemical which effects these bonds.
So all molecular behaviour is self determined and given an initial set of chemicals the result is expected due to the laws of enthropy. Complexity is a result of this self organization.

Biochemistry - studies of this special class of chemicals, hydrocarbons, shows how proteins can take many forms and shapes, which helps to explain how biological forms take advantage of these chemicals.

Genetic studies lead one to the conclusion that all life is related.

Geology leads one to the conclusion that the Earth is very old.

Physics leads one to the conclusion that the Univers is very old.

Psychology and Game theory makes exelent predictions for how individuals react in a group. Giving theories for the origins of cooperation and cheating.

Physiology helps one understand the working of the human body. Problems such as prostate problems and hernias make more sence when the alteration of human physiology is considered.

Paleontology and fossils support that life has changed throughout time.

And Biology.

These conclusions were reached independanttly each with its own set of observations.

I'm sure you will be shocked to find that I disagree with you. I don't think that the observations "lead" us at all. The hypotheses are what lead, not the other way around. Collecting evidence from a presupposition that evolution is true, and hypthesizing based on that, it isn't astounding at all that you see evidence everywhere for it.

If one believes evolution to be true, they will explain everything in terms of evolution. IT's not shocking. IT isn't independant verification of evolution to use that theory to hypothesize. Evolution is true therefore . . . is nothingness. Observations lead us nowhere, in fact if you take a good hard look at scientific process, you will see that the theory leads us to our conclusions.

Jbuza wrote: I'm sure you will be shocked to find that I disagree with you. I don't think that the observations "lead" us at all. The hypotheses are what lead, not the other way around. Collecting evidence from a presupposition that evolution is true, and hypthesizing based on that, it isn't astounding at all that you see evidence everywhere for it.

Fair enough. But isn't this what the scientific method is?

Jbuza wrote:If one believes evolution to be true, they will explain everything in terms of evolution. IT's not shocking. IT isn't independant verification of evolution to use that theory to hypothesize. Evolution is true therefore . . . is nothingness. Observations lead us nowhere, in fact if you take a good hard look at scientific process, you will see that the theory leads us to our conclusions.

Basing one's hypothesis on a theory allows one to test a theory. This is how science disproves an idea.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote: I'm sure you will be shocked to find that I disagree with you. I don't think that the observations "lead" us at all. The hypotheses are what lead, not the other way around. Collecting evidence from a presupposition that evolution is true, and hypthesizing based on that, it isn't astounding at all that you see evidence everywhere for it.

Fair enough. But isn't this what the scientific method is?

Yes. but you are not going to find any alternative conclusions or explanations from hypotheses that are derived from evolution and presuppose that to be true. You are going to in fact use your hypothesis to determine what you are studying, and it will guide things as far as confirmation or revision goes. The evidence is independant of the paticular explanation or theoretical presupositions. You are seeking from a world view that evolution is true, so you measure things and interpret to support that. For instance if you hypothesize that everything evolved you will create phlogenetic charts and refine them, however they are not evidence of evolution, and are suppositions based on a scientific investigative process; but that process cannot measure truth for you.

Bgood wrote:

Jbuza wrote:If one believes evolution to be true, they will explain everything in terms of evolution. IT's not shocking. IT isn't independant verification of evolution to use that theory to hypothesize. Evolution is true therefore . . . is nothingness. Observations lead us nowhere, in fact if you take a good hard look at scientific process, you will see that the theory leads us to our conclusions.

Basing one's hypothesis on a theory allows one to test a theory. This is how science disproves an idea.

[/quote]
Well sort of, but that isn't the whole picture. The hypothesis would be disproven, but the logic and reason of the science process will never disprove the idea of evolution nor can it because their are people that would rather believe it to be true than accept God and identify with the crucifiction of Jesus that is foolishness to the world. As one can see from museums and text books renditions of phlygenetic charts are more of an idea than a tangible hypothetical supposition. Their is no evidence that evolution actually happaned and that creation events did not; nor the reverse.

So while yes it is the scientific process, science is a tool that man can use for a huge range of applications and idle speculations not a process to discover truth or ideas. It is the process of testing ideas to find if they are at least logical and reasonable. I don't see where science has done either of these things for the idea of evolution, so I leave it in the category of defunct hypothesis.

Jbuza wrote:

Basing one's hypothesis on a theory allows one to test a theory. This is how science disproves an idea.

Well sort of, but that isn't the whole picture. The hypothesis would be disproven, but the logic and reason of the science process will never disprove the idea of evolution nor can it because their are people that would rather believe it to be true than accept God and identify with the crucifiction of Jesus that is foolishness to the world. As one can see from museums and text books renditions of phlygenetic charts are more of an idea than a tangible hypothetical supposition. Their is no evidence that evolution actually happaned and that creation events did not; nor the reverse.

So while yes it is the scientific process, science is a tool that man can use for a huge range of applications and idle speculations not a process to discover truth or ideas. It is the process of testing ideas to find if they are at least logical and reasonable. I don't see where science has done either of these things for the idea of evolution, so I leave it in the category of defunct hypothesis.

I disagree, its a lot more simple than that.
Lets say I just discovered a gene for making vitamin C in a yeast cell and in an elephant.
And that this gene helps the organism synthsize vitamin C.
My hypothesis, humans do not have this gene, but may have a non working copy.
Now if humans are found to have a working copy I would have to rethink what this gene is for.


Another observation, all animals have a copy but they are different.

Hypothesis based on evolutionary theory, the differences in the cytochrom C correspond to the proposed distance of relation of each species.
Now if this isn't the case then one needs to hypothesis another reason why cytochrome C does not differ in this way.