Evidence for God from Science

Evolutions believe that an animal will change to another kind though successive births. Their religion works like this:

1) Small changes are observed --->LEAP OF FAITH ---> 2) Animals can change to another kind

It take faith to go from step 1 to step 2.

I have heard people say they believe in evolution because the evolutionists have shown them that it happens. Nothing could be further from the truth. Evolutionist show 2 kinds of animals and they ASSUME that they changed to another kind. It is smoke and mirrors.

Have you ever noticed when they show a chart of evolution it is almost always from a small animal to a bigger one. A good example is the logo for that goofy cave man show that is on now. Apes are bigger than people but they make apes look smaller when lining them up. It is to fool people to make it look like their religion is believable. Not even the evolutionist can agree what animals came from which. It is because they have no proof. It is all make believe.

I am not sure who determines what is "proper" in their religion, but the statement "Evolutions believe that an animal will change to another kind though successive births" is a logical definition of one part of their religion. Adding more words to it does not change it. Does "Evolutions believe that an animal will change to another kind though successive generations" sound better?

LOok, my only point is that we need to understand and use the proper language when debating.


Do we not get upset at atheists who misuse scripture in order to foolishly reject God? And we want to understand the Bible when the debate.

We should understand the proper definition because it can only help us to debate the topic.

Yes, the changes through birth/generations are important but its the differential reproduction and survival that then mean that certain individuals genes are passed down prefentially and thus provide the impetus for those changes.

But I agree that there is a leap of faith. IN the original post, you were asking if those were accurate. I'm just telling you that they weren't precise.

Byblos wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:(as a spoon with a hole in it would be faulty?)

A spoon with a hole in it wouldn't be faulty, it'd be a fork (ok, that was lame, sorry; carry on).

I like the spoons with the holes, where you just get the meat and nothing but the meat.

FFC wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:(as a spoon with a hole in it would be faulty?)

A spoon with a hole in it wouldn't be faulty, it'd be a fork (ok, that was lame, sorry; carry on).

I like the spoons with the holes, where you just get the meat and nothing but the meat.

My mom liked them too, but they were used for spanking. No wind resistance!!!

CharlieB,

Blessings on what you are trying to accomplish, but I think Zoegirl and others have some good points. We must truly understand the opposition in order to bring them to the light with good arguments, not just think we understand. You might create doubt in a young persons' mind with your list, but unlikely with a hardened atheist. I think a better approach might be to find unanswerable holes in the evolutionary viewpoint and use those to your advantage.

From my understanding, a significant number of atheists are actually previous Christians, with a knowledge of the Holy Word. That they have chosen to drift from the true path is sad, but God has chosen to harden their hearts so that they cannot see. I think the best path to take is to try to save the young and impressionable, while praying that God will work His will!

In His love,

Dan

The problems becomes one of those that espouse evolution embracing it as a philosophy as well as a means to explain origins, not to mention a means of disproving the existence of God.

The animosity they show towards even theistic evolutionists such as francis Collins should show you that there is as much issue on the evolutionists side with regards to mixing up religion and philosophy with science.

You're arguing from final consequences there.
Whether or not people use evolution to argue against the existence of god, to justify a genocide, or to create their own philosophy has absolutely nothing to do with whether all the creatures on this earth have evolved or not.
If you don't like the fact that someone uses the fact of evolution to bolster their atheism, then that matters not one jot to the inexorable modification of animals' genes.

I think the problem with evolution is that it is not really testable. To test it we would need billions of years, which we don't have. The theory works well, I like it, but it involves extrapolating what is going on now, testable, to what has been going on all along, untestable.

I think I may need to start a topic on the philosophy of evolution soon as I don't really understand the field. It always seemed to me as a great idea and one which united the field of biology as opposed to something which was opposed to theism. Links would be appreciated.

Proinsias wrote:I think the problem with evolution is that it is not really testable. To test it we would need billions of years, which we don't have. The theory works well, I like it, but it involves extrapolating what is going on now, testable, to what has been going on all along, untestable.

I think I may need to start a topic on the philosophy of evolution soon as I don't really understand the field. It always seemed to me as a great idea and one which united the field of biology as opposed to something which was opposed to theism. Links would be appreciated.

What do you mean we would need billions of years?
We've had billions of years and life has spent that time blossoming out into a great tree. Evolution is not only testable, but is also falsifiable; that is one of the most compelling reasons to believe it...time and time again it has been tested and time and time again it has stood up and not been falsified.

CharlieB wrote:I want to come up with a quick no-brainer to tell people on why evolution is religious and not science. I need something quick and obvious. Too much technical information will not get the point across and risk confusing them. Let me know what you think and if something needs to be improved with what I have for now:

4 truths to prove evolution is religious and not scientific:

No one has ever made matter appear from nothing.

No one has ever seen an animal give birth to anything other that it's own kind

No one has ever seen a star form but there have been many explosions witnessed

No one has ever produced life from non living things.

Science has not been able to do any of these. However to believe in evolution requires that you have faith that all these happened.

Thanks in advance

No one has ever made matter appear from nothing.
- This is not required for evolution.

No one has ever seen an animal give birth to anything other that it's own kind
- This has happened; just do a quick google for "speciation". What do you mean by kind, anyway?

No one has ever seen a star form but there have been many explosions witnessed
- This is not required for evolution.

No one has ever produced life from non living things.
- True, in a sense. Your mother created you from all kinds of "non-living" matter when you were in her womb. Oh, and this isn't required by evolution.

The evolution of humans from basic cells took billions of years. To repeat would take billions of years. Science doesn't like stuff that's not repeatable. It's hard to repeat that sort of stuff.

Again we can repeat it on a small scale and extrapolate it to the big scale, doesn't mean it happened on the big scale though.

You don't have to evolve a human from a single cell in order to demonstrate evolution.
The many and varied lines of evidence (fossil record, nested hierarchy, genetics) very satisfactorily show that it has happened.

touchingcloth wrote:You're arguing from final consequences there.
Whether or not people use evolution to argue against the existence of god, to justify a genocide, or to create their own philosophy has absolutely nothing to do with whether all the creatures on this earth have evolved or not.
If you don't like the fact that someone uses the fact of evolution to bolster their atheism, then that matters not one jot to the inexorable modification of animals' genes.

I don't have a problem with it, necessarily. If there were enough evidence for it. I have said before of this forum that I am somewhere between Theistic evolution and progressive creationsim.

You aren't hearing my point. I'm saying that for all of your insistence on it merely being a physical process, I'm saying that atheists have used it as a philosophical argument.

your insistence would be more convincing if I knew that you proclaimed this to all of the atheist philosophers who use it as part of their argument against god.

zoegirl wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:You're arguing from final consequences there.
Whether or not people use evolution to argue against the existence of god, to justify a genocide, or to create their own philosophy has absolutely nothing to do with whether all the creatures on this earth have evolved or not.
If you don't like the fact that someone uses the fact of evolution to bolster their atheism, then that matters not one jot to the inexorable modification of animals' genes.

I don't have a problem with it, necessarily. If there were enough evidence for it. I have said before of this forum that I am somewhere between Theistic evolution and progressive creationsim.

You aren't hearing my point. I'm saying that for all of your insistence on it merely being a physical process, I'm saying that atheists have used it as a philosophical argument.

your insistence would be more convincing if I knew that you proclaimed this to all of the atheist philosophers who use it as part of their argument against god.

My point was that the truth or otherwise of evolution is a separate issue from whether people take it and crowbar it into their own philosophy.
Also, don't discount the people who glean a positive philosophy from evolution; every creature and every human being on the planet are related, so all deserve to be treated with respect.