Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Sat May 12, 2007 4:16 am**

What do you call a "Genetic Defect" (Evolution)

i used the word 'defect' to separate it from the connotations that come with the word 'evolution' and to show a bit of reality. no 'defect' is beneficial, that is why it is called a defect.

Bigger Beaks on Finches or Different colours on Moths? They were Beneficial to the environment they were in.

you love to throw in evolution and give credit to something that is not of God while leaving God out of the picture. did you ever stop to think, instead of listening to non-religious people, that God designed species to respond in a certain manner in a given situation? it is called foresight not evolution.

when there is a forest fire and you see the animals running away from the flames, do you call that evolution at work or God caring for His creation?

how many animals do you see running TOWARDS the fire? God prepared His species to be protect themselves, it is not natural selection, it is not evolution, it is GOD.

Posted: **Mon May 14, 2007 11:33 am**

archaeologist wrote: you love to throw in evolution and give credit to something that is not of God while leaving God out of the picture. did you ever stop to think, instead of listening to non-religious people, that God designed species to respond in a certain manner in a given situation? it is called foresight not evolution.

when there is a forest fire and you see the animals running away from the flames, do you call that evolution at work or God caring for His creation?

how many animals do you see running TOWARDS the fire? God prepared His species to be protect themselves, it is not natural selection, it is not evolution, it is GOD.

Would it be so hard for you to treat people with some dignity? Also why are you putting words in my Mouth? So it is not a Defect then just a Foresight?

BTW I know it is GOD!!! Geezz everyone on this Board knows it is God! (unless you are Atheist or Agnostic) Life on this Planet was written by God and everything with Life has a purpose under God. Evolution I believe also has a Purpose under God whether it happened after the Fall (Could Have) or it was apart of God's Creation (Could Have).

Thanks

Posted: **Mon May 14, 2007 2:42 pm**

bizzt wrote:
archaeologist wrote: you love to throw in evolution and give credit to something that is not of God while leaving God out of the picture. did you ever stop to think, instead of listening to non-religious people, that God designed species to respond in a certain manner in a given situation? it is called foresight not evolution.

when there is a forest fire and you see the animals running away from the flames, do you call that evolution at work or God caring for His creation?

how many animals do you see running TOWARDS the fire? God prepared His species to be protect themselves, it is not natural selection, it is not evolution, it is GOD.
Would it be so hard for you to treat people with some dignity? Also why are you putting words in my Mouth? So it is not a Defect then just a Foresight?

BTW I know it is GOD!!! Geezz everyone on this Board knows it is God! (unless you are Atheist or Agnostic) Life on this Planet was written by God and everything with Life has a purpose under God. Evolution I believe also has a Purpose under God whether it happened after the Fall (Could Have) or it was apart of God's Creation (Could Have).

Thanks

Yes, somebody else is here!! Thank you! If anybody reads my posts, they will realize that many, many times I have also said that GOD is responsible.

Posted: **Mon May 14, 2007 2:44 pm**

Would it be so hard for you to treat people with some dignity

how is that undignified? it was an example not an insult

Also why are you putting words in my Mouth?

how ami putting wordsinyour mouth? i am just going by your posts and what you say.

So it is not a Defect then just a Foresight

didn't say that.

that God designed species to respond in a certain manner in a given situation

just pointing out the possibilities.

I know it is GOD

i disagree especially if you are crediting evolution. that theory is not of God, not used by God, not part of what God did.

Evolution I believe also has a Purpose under God whether it happened after the Fall (Could Have) or it was apart of God's Creation (Could Have).

evolution doesn't exist, can't because it is not of God. it is a theory designed to remove glory for God, to undermine His work, His example and so on.

it is unprovable and denies what God said throughout the Bible concerning creation. no, it could not have because after the fall, creation was finished long before. nor could it have been a part of creation becuase it goes against the Bible and what God has said.

why doyou persist on hanging onto secular thinking and theories whenyou say you are a believer in God? God's word is very clear here: Is 65:17 states where God is going to create a new heavenand a new earth--do you mean to tell me he will use evolution there to do that?

every scripture reference from Gen. to Rev. states that God created,it can't get any clearer than that. let go of your evolutionary thinking for it is not of God despite what science may say.

Posted: **Sun May 27, 2007 7:41 pm**

archaeologist wrote:how many animals do you see running TOWARDS the fire? God prepared His species to be protect themselves, it is not natural selection, it is not evolution, it is GOD.

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/232050.html wrote: Like a moth to a flame

Meaning

Irresistibly and dangerously attracted to something or someone.

Origin

The phrase is a simple allusion to the well-known attraction that moths have to bright lights. The word moth was used the the 17th century to mean someone who was apt to be tempted by something that would lead to their downfall. This is referred to by Shakespeare in The Merchant of Venice, 1600:

"Thus hath the candle singd the moath."

Posted: **Sat Jun 02, 2007 12:21 pm**

This evolution vs. creationism has always beena struglle etc - but why is it greater, than, lets say, the one for creation of the universe?
Because human is in any way closer to it?? Universe and nature are as if one and both proclaim the nature of God.
And ya, i am not an evolutionist, yet i have doubts. the pro-evolutionist, whereer i look, to any scoientifci magazine, theroy, whatever, they can so clearly argue it is by evolution and they try to show it is by that. Yes we may not believe and say what we think. however, archaeologists have shown that some dinosarus etc died out 65 million yrs ago. wel why cant it be true that species were created, lived, and between the days of creation, many have died etc. before day 6 came, dinosaurs, for example hav been extnict so that when fisrt man came, all of them had already been extinct. thats how i believe and see it. anthing wrong with that? why couldnt speceis be well dead before man came to existence?
ANd are really c-14 dating and other techniques that unreliable? i also wondered and thought, that, amount of C-14 during the time may have changed as a ratio, so that hte amount, lets say, a few million yrs ago, was much lower already, so that much less of it has decayed than they say. if thats a possible theiry then it cud b true that those million figures are nothing but loads of nonsense... or arent they?

but evolution as macroevolution should be dismissed coz i see no how human can evolve from a virus or bacterium or plankton or whatever it was they claim its from. yes, it can... by "intelligent evolution" - led by our God. but by random? Nature is intelligent, but thats koz its got a perfect Creator. I often wonder how nicely things are arranged - all fits nicely together... fine tuning!

OK if anyone can explain this, ill be stupefied... By going through the Bible, if we count number of years from Adam to Jesus - how many years have passed? therefore, according to the Bible, man has been on earth for that many years. Ignoring that, some history, biology books and so on say: "man has been here for 100 000 years", some 300 000, some million, some 4 million etc. Still nothing compared to the whole 4 billion yrs Earth has existed but a few thousand compared to millions is huge. Also, what about homo habilis, erectus and that? dont think Adam was a homo habilis, and a few thousand yrs later, we have sapiens (and as we know 2000 yrs ago people were what they are today). so shoudl the habilis and so be dismissed?

And even in my bio book it says that a skull of someone who died 1.8 million yrs ago has been found. also, it says that Lucy is a member of Australopithecus afarensis, which dates from some 3 million years ago. they even say when she died she was about 20 yrs old and measured between 107 and 122 cm in height. What about that then??

Posted: **Sun Jun 03, 2007 11:39 am**

madscientist wrote:wel why cant it be true that species were created, lived, and between the days of creation, many have died etc. before day 6 came, dinosaurs, for example hav been extnict so that when fisrt man came, all of them had already been extinct. thats how i believe and see it. anthing wrong with that? why couldnt speceis be well dead before man came to existence?

These conclusions or speculations are not supported in the text of the Bible but are the result of trusting that the scientific evidence is true, then looking at the scripture. Since the scripture does not agree with these ideas of whole species living and dying prior to man, why do you still conclude the scientific evidence is the absolute truth and the scripture either ignores the truth, hides the truth, or must be interpreted in some new way. Is there no possibilty that science is wrong?

ANd are really c-14 dating and other techniques that unreliable? i also wondered and thought, that, amount of C-14 during the time may have changed as a ratio, so that hte amount, lets say, a few million yrs ago, was much lower already, so that much less of it has decayed than they say. if thats a possible theiry then it cud b true that those million figures are nothing but loads of nonsense... or arent they?

C14 dating is proving to be highly unreliable as it is now being shown that many uncontrolled conditions can greatly effect the ratio of C12 to C14 and therefore skew the results. Forget the evidence of C14. It is soon to be abandoned even by secular science. Read this article: http://globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCc14.html

but evolution as macroevolution should be dismissed coz i see no how human can evolve from a virus or bacterium or plankton or whatever it was they claim its from. yes, it can... by "intelligent evolution" - led by our God. but by random?

Dismissing macroevolution must result in dismissing evolution altogether. Evolution as a theory cannot exist without macroevolution and abiogenesis and neither has been proven. Evolution is not God directed or improved by God. The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain how life came to be without God. Christians should reject it wholly and completely.

And even in my bio book it says that a skull of someone who died 1.8 million yrs ago has been found. also, it says that Lucy is a member of Australopithecus afarensis, which dates from some 3 million years ago. they even say when she died she was about 20 yrs old and measured between 107 and 122 cm in height. What about that then??

People must understand that whole species of proto homo sapiens and ancesters to homo sapien are invented by scientitst based on tiny bone fragments often found scattered over a site and found at different times. These conclusions are based on the scantest of evidence and many times are proven to be unreliable. Still once stated, the public believes it even when later retracted. Read this article for example:
http://www.skepticfiles.org/atheist2/inst23.htm
also read this:
http://globalflood.org/letters/baumgardner210495.html

Posted: **Mon Jun 04, 2007 11:45 am**

Forum Monk wrote:
madscientist wrote:wel why cant it be true that species were created, lived, and between the days of creation, many have died etc. before day 6 came, dinosaurs, for example hav been extnict so that when fisrt man came, all of them had already been extinct. thats how i believe and see it. anthing wrong with that? why couldnt speceis be well dead before man came to existence?
These conclusions or speculations are not supported in the text of the Bible but are the result of trusting that the scientific evidence is true, then looking at the scripture. Since the scripture does not agree with these ideas of whole species living and dying prior to man, why do you still conclude the scientific evidence is the absolute truth and the scripture either ignores the truth, hides the truth, or must be interpreted in some new way. Is there no possibilty that science is wrong?

Hmm where does it say Bible doesnot agree with this theory? does it specifically say? btw isnt this OEC vs. YEC? old earth vs young earth or waht it is? Ok well i admit i like science (thus my name

) but ofcours i acknwoledge it has doubts, and am trying to get to a point where i hope that one day, science and religion can be joined together into a beautiful "science" or whatewa where they dont contradict but agree.

Forum Monk wrote:
madscientist wrote: ANd are really c-14 dating and other techniques that unreliable? i also wondered and thought, that, amount of C-14 during the time may have changed as a ratio, so that hte amount, lets say, a few million yrs ago, was much lower already, so that much less of it has decayed than they say. if thats a possible theiry then it cud b true that those million figures are nothing but loads of nonsense... or arent they?
C14 dating is proving to be highly unreliable as it is now being shown that many uncontrolled conditions can greatly effect the ratio of C12 to C14 and therefore skew the results. Forget the evidence of C14. It is soon to be abandoned even by secular science. Read this article: http://globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCc14.html

I had some time to look at it. hmm i doubted it, but after that i dount it even more. but what is interesging, and not only about this - but about all of that - is that how PERSUASIVE they all sound when hey say it. the truth is, Bible is one and only, but scientific facts - there are zillions!! how many books, magazines, theories, people, tv programmes, etc - argue that dinosaures, for example, died out 65 million yrs ago. Also wonder how they came up woth facts as "he had green skin, ate [name of dinosaur], died out [xxx] yrs ago and from the few evidence build up a whole theory. but as it is not one and once, but many times, it becomes so true-sounding, and Bible does not, sadly, mean much to people nowadays...

Forum Monk wrote:
madscientist wrote: but evolution as macroevolution should be dismissed coz i see no how human can evolve from a virus or bacterium or plankton or whatever it was they claim its from. yes, it can... by "intelligent evolution" - led by our God. but by random?
Dismissing macroevolution must result in dismissing evolution altogether. Evolution as a theory cannot exist without macroevolution and abiogenesis and neither has been proven. Evolution is not God directed or improved by God. The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain how life came to be without God. Christians should reject it wholly and completely.

Hm really? i would disagree though - microevolution happens, such as the example of moths, becterial resistance, natural selection, adaptation to environment - and so on. if that is what microevolution means, then it must exist koz its what is all around us... or am i wrong?

Forum Monk wrote:
madscientist wrote: And even in my bio book it says that a skull of someone who died 1.8 million yrs ago has been found. also, it says that Lucy is a member of Australopithecus afarensis, which dates from some 3 million years ago. they even say when she died she was about 20 yrs old and measured between 107 and 122 cm in height. What about that then??
People must understand that whole species of proto homo sapiens and ancesters to homo sapien are invented by scientitst based on tiny bone fragments often found scattered over a site and found at different times. These conclusions are based on the scantest of evidence and many times are proven to be unreliable. Still once stated, the public believes it even when later retracted. Read this article for example:
http://www.skepticfiles.org/atheist2/inst23.htm
also read this:
http://globalflood.org/letters/baumgardner210495.html

HAHA! Ya saw that nebraska man and other ones - wanna make me laugh at the stupidity and naivity!!

ya well thats all aboyut tryong to "fill in the gaps" that are needed to be filled by making up stuff. ya its ridiculous. But again, the fact that so many scientists agree to that makes it astounding and almost unbelievable that one Book can be truer than millions scientists investigating this.
BAck to bible and so on. OK: Bible says that 3rd day - plants, and then later moon and so (looked at a non-englsih translation of bible i hav at home..) - well ok everyobody would agree that first light, Sun, and then plants - life without energy is impossible. Any thoughts?

Posted: **Mon Jun 04, 2007 1:46 pm**

Forum Monk wrote:
madscientist wrote:wel why cant it be true that species were created, lived, and between the days of creation, many have died etc. before day 6 came, dinosaurs, for example hav been extnict so that when fisrt man came, all of them had already been extinct. thats how i believe and see it. anthing wrong with that? why couldnt speceis be well dead before man came to existence?
These conclusions or speculations are not supported in the text of the Bible but are the result of trusting that the scientific evidence is true, then looking at the scripture. Since the scripture does not agree with these ideas of whole species living and dying prior to man, why do you still conclude the scientific evidence is the absolute truth and the scripture either ignores the truth, hides the truth, or must be interpreted in some new way. Is there no possibilty that science is wrong?

ANd are really c-14 dating and other techniques that unreliable? i also wondered and thought, that, amount of C-14 during the time may have changed as a ratio, so that hte amount, lets say, a few million yrs ago, was much lower already, so that much less of it has decayed than they say. if thats a possible theiry then it cud b true that those million figures are nothing but loads of nonsense... or arent they?
C14 dating is proving to be highly unreliable as it is now being shown that many uncontrolled conditions can greatly effect the ratio of C12 to C14 and therefore skew the results. Forget the evidence of C14. It is soon to be abandoned even by secular science. Read this article: http://globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCc14.html

but evolution as macroevolution should be dismissed coz i see no how human can evolve from a virus or bacterium or plankton or whatever it was they claim its from. yes, it can... by "intelligent evolution" - led by our God. but by random?
Dismissing macroevolution must result in dismissing evolution altogether. Evolution as a theory cannot exist without macroevolution and abiogenesis and neither has been proven. Evolution is not God directed or improved by God. The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain how life came to be without God. Christians should reject it wholly and completely.

And even in my bio book it says that a skull of someone who died 1.8 million yrs ago has been found. also, it says that Lucy is a member of Australopithecus afarensis, which dates from some 3 million years ago. they even say when she died she was about 20 yrs old and measured between 107 and 122 cm in height. What about that then??
People must understand that whole species of proto homo sapiens and ancesters to homo sapien are invented by scientitst based on tiny bone fragments often found scattered over a site and found at different times. These conclusions are based on the scantest of evidence and many times are proven to be unreliable. Still once stated, the public believes it even when later retracted. Read this article for example:
http://www.skepticfiles.org/atheist2/inst23.htm
also read this:
http://globalflood.org/letters/baumgardner210495.html

I respectfully disagree with the radiometric dating.
See http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html

Especially read the section on "can we really trust the dating"

Not to mention that radiometric dating is only one method of examining the age of the earth

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... verse.html

Posted: **Mon Jun 04, 2007 5:44 pm**

zoegirl wrote: See http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html

Excellent resource. Highly recommended reading for anyone with an interest. No scientific background required.

Posted: **Tue Jun 05, 2007 5:01 am**

archaeologist wrote:i am well aware that other threads have posted similar points but i would like to put them in one spot to demonstrate why evolution (whether secular or theistic) is impossible.

1. to state the obvious, the Bible does not use or refer to the evolutionary process. all references are point to God as creator and a six day creation.

I cannot see how the fact that the Bible doesn't refer to something makes it impossible. The Bible doesn't refer to genetic engineering or nuclear fusion but that doesn't make them impossible.

L

Posted: **Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:53 am**

Well from this article - havent read it all, but seems like he argues as a Christian, and also seems to argue for and against just simply non-believing it. OK now i am confused!!

One day 1 thing, the other another. What is the truth? Will we ever know it? Whilst that article was sayin how it ius unreliable, this one doesnt seem to confirm that - it also tlaks about otehr methods and so on. So which one is true, God only knows... and i think it is all this confusion and so on that has led to many separations, even of churches and so, as well as the believer vs nonbeliever views.
OK i accept that Earth is old, and that there may be some truth in reliability of methods. did the article say anuthing about age of humans eytc? didnt have time to look at that.
But anyway, even though evolution is false, it doesnt mean that c14 must be wrong or so, in my opinion... even the G&S link says earth is old, so... nothing wrong with that, i suppose! why not just say that earth and universe had been created before man, then animals, then man finally... anything wrong with that?

Posted: **Tue Jun 05, 2007 12:40 pm**

madscientist wrote:Well from this article - havent read it all, but seems like he argues as a Christian, and also seems to argue for and against just simply non-believing it. OK now i am confused!! One day 1 thing, the other another. What is the truth? Will we ever know it? Whilst that article was sayin how it ius unreliable, this one doesnt seem to confirm that - it also tlaks about otehr methods and so on. So which one is true, God only knows... and i think it is all this confusion and so on that has led to many separations, even of churches and so, as well as the believer vs nonbeliever views.
OK i accept that Earth is old, and that there may be some truth in reliability of methods. did the article say anuthing about age of humans eytc? didnt have time to look at that.
But anyway, even though evolution is false, it doesnt mean that c14 must be wrong or so, in my opinion... even the G&S link says earth is old, so... nothing wrong with that, i suppose! why not just say that earth and universe had been created before man, then animals, then man finally... anything wrong with that?

which article are you referring to, mine or forum monks? Mine totally supported the consistency of radiometric dating

Posted: **Wed Jun 06, 2007 5:05 am**

Radio-carbon dating is unreliable because the ratio of C12 to C14 does not remain uniform through the centuries and it is not always easy for scientists to determine how often and to which degree it is necessary to recalibrate. Only recently, evidence is coming in which speak of a major cataclysm which throws off most dates in North America.
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/nuclear.pdf

The question is, what other possible events and when did they occur which also forces recalibration that we have no knowledge of. These kinds of problems are the reason I say, C14 dating has fallen into disfavor and is being abandoned.

Posted: **Wed Jun 06, 2007 9:15 am**

zoegirl wrote:
madscientist wrote:Well from this article - havent read it all, but seems like he argues as a Christian, and also seems to argue for and against just simply non-believing it. OK now i am confused!! One day 1 thing, the other another. What is the truth? Will we ever know it? Whilst that article was sayin how it ius unreliable, this one doesnt seem to confirm that - it also tlaks about otehr methods and so on. So which one is true, God only knows... and i think it is all this confusion and so on that has led to many separations, even of churches and so, as well as the believer vs nonbeliever views.
OK i accept that Earth is old, and that there may be some truth in reliability of methods. did the article say anuthing about age of humans eytc? didnt have time to look at that.
But anyway, even though evolution is false, it doesnt mean that c14 must be wrong or so, in my opinion... even the G&S link says earth is old, so... nothing wrong with that, i suppose! why not just say that earth and universe had been created before man, then animals, then man finally... anything wrong with that?
which article are you referring to, mine or forum monks? Mine totally supported the consistency of radiometric dating

Ah ... sory for the confusion!!

referring to yours when sayin it is accurate, and it is contradicting FM's as his is sayin its inaccurate. Which are contradicting, and leads people to believe... true or not? Havent looked at FM's new link yet, but i think it argues c dating is inaccurate. Now, it looks like the truth is still unknown, and depends on what 1 really believes... while u say it is reliable, FM says it is not... contradictions. Maybe theres some truth in both, who knows...

Evidence for God from Science

the case against evolution

evolution and science vs God

Re: evolution and science vs God

Re: evolution and science vs God

Re: evolution and science vs God

Re: evolution and science vs God

Re: the case against evolution

dating and all that

Re: dating and all that

Re: dating and all that