Evidence for God from Science

Well spoken MisterOZ. Welcome to the forum...

THX for the shout GMAN, right back atcha. I have been visiting this site for quite some time and only recently realized it had a forum. I hope to gain some more insight from like minds. God Bless!

MisterOZ wrote:THX for the shout GMAN, right back atcha. I have been visiting this site for quite some time and only recently realized it had a forum. I hope to gain some more insight from like minds. God Bless!

It took me awhile to figure that out too... You are not alone.

I believe you will have a great time here with the rest of the progressive creationists. My understanding has increased tenfold since I've been here. Your in good hands!

Blessings.

MisterOZ wrote:I am not a scientist, although this is an area of interest for me since it solidifies my agreement with Christ, but there actually is a 5% genetic difference between humans and chimps, and what a difference that 5% makes.

But, to answer the question microevolution are small adaptive changes as we see with Darwin's finches who are able to change physical characteristics in their changing environment and will also change back when suitable, no matter what though the finch stays a finch and always was a finch as it will also always be a finch. Macroevolution is speciation meaning that a population diverges enough from ancestor organism to become sexually incompatible, their genes cannot mix. Granted this is not enough to explain plants to fish, to reptiles, to birds, to mammals. This is left to story telling, conjecture and myth and is not even remotely provable by the fossil record which actually proves large "gaps" in the evolution of organisms and no Darwinian gradualism, attempted to be explained away by punctuated equilibrium.

All in all I'd bet on God who in his wisdom made things simple enough for our puny brains to understand so as to make this world a better place for as many human beings as can be created.

Hi MisterOZ and welcome to the forum.

Thank you for your thoughts — they are in line with what I “know” and having been learning. The fact that there are large “gaps” in the fossil record tells me that the dogmatic evolutionist, who continues to ignore this fact in the pursuit of an ideology, is just practicing a “science of the gaps.”

And there's a page by Rich on here that puts “punctuated equilibrium” firmly in its place. I'll try to find it if you haven't already viewed it…?

Peace.

THX DannyM, Ditto!

We have to understand that biological evolutionist know of the inherent problems with traditional Darwinism, hence the transformation to neo-Darwinism and the constant paradigm shifts in the theory.

Punctuated Equilibrium is a theory proposed by Eldridge and Gould, evolutionary paleontologists, in response to failings of science to explain the gaps in the fossil record to prove any sort of gradual development supposed by Darwin, who himself was well aware of the problem let alone any complexity issues. Punctuated Equilibrium fails since evolutionist realize that an organism or population must be able to predict what changes to physiological characteristics will be beneficial in accordance with environmental flux, meaning that the organism doesn't have time for random mutations to make any determinations in time before a new environmental change effects the need for further change. "God of the Gaps" theory is actually a term coined by evolutionist to disparage theist claims, so evolutionist try to come up with materialistic theories to explain the failings in Darwinistic theories.

What we don't see in the fossil record, in any way shape or form, is the gradual development of a fin evolving into a leg or an arm. Just imagine what little good a thumb or a pinky would do without a wrist or an elbow.

A scientific examination of the mammalian eye proves the complexity issues and the intelligent construction of each integrated part, which are unable to be serviceable in any respect without the simultaneous development of each. A photo sensitive patch on a creature to explain the development of the eye is like comparing rock throwing to a laser beam.

Darwinism is atheism which is the only reason why evolutionist maintain and force the theory through political and legal channels rather than accept the total absurdity of the process without an intelligent director who in His wisdom is mindful of our limitations and created a definable reality for, as stated, our betterment and improvement in His Name only.

MisterOZ wrote:THX DannyM, Ditto!

We have to understand that biological evolutionist know of the inherent problems with traditional Darwinism, hence the transformation to neo-Darwinism and the constant paradigm shifts in the theory.

Punctuated Equilibrium is a theory proposed by Eldridge and Gould, evolutionary paleontologists, in response to failings of science to explain the gaps in the fossil record to prove any sort of gradual development supposed by Darwin, who himself was well aware of the problem let alone any complexity issues. Punctuated Equilibrium fails since evolutionist realize that an organism or population must be able to predict what changes to physiological characteristics will be beneficial in accordance with environmental flux, meaning that the organism doesn't have time for random mutations to make any determinations in time before a new environmental change effects the need for further change. "God of the Gaps" theory is actually a term coined by evolutionist to disparage theist claims, so evolutionist try to come up with materialistic theories to explain the failings in Darwinistic theories. .

Yep. That sounds about right.

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... LWIET5hgrm

MisterOZ wrote:What we don't see in the fossil record, in any way shape or form, is the gradual development of a fin evolving into a leg or an arm. Just imagine what little good a thumb or a pinky would do without a wrist or an elbow.

A scientific examination of the mammalian eye proves the complexity issues and the intelligent construction of each integrated part, which are unable to be serviceable in any respect without the simultaneous development of each. A photo sensitive patch on a creature to explain the development of the eye is like comparing rock throwing to a laser beam. .

You'll fit in fine here, Mister, as you seem to know your stuff!

MisterOZ wrote:Darwinism is atheism which is the only reason why evolutionist maintain and force the theory through political and legal channels rather than accept the total absurdity of the process without an intelligent director who in His wisdom is mindful of our limitations and created a definable reality for, as stated, our betterment and improvement in His Name only.

Darwinism has been fostered by atheism in an attempt to justify itself. Darwinism can only really lead to agnosticism. You can certainly “tweak” your worldview around Darwinism, but Darwinism itself leads neither to atheism nor theism. That atheists have chosen to ride on the back of Darwinism and use it as a base for their desperate worldview is just plain ridiculous and, frankly, quite humourous.

Michael Polany, philosopher of science, said, “Natural scientists believe in some things they know will, at some later stage, be shown to be wrong — not being sure which of their beliefs will turn out to be erroneous.”

Scientific theories are thus provisional, and if the theories are subject to erosion, then any worldview based upon that theory is then subject to the same fate. Hence atheism, when based on a scientific theory, is a worldview which literally hangs by a thread.

You gotta love 'em!

That's money!

ageofknowledge wrote:That's money!

Nah Age, not interested in the small change you got hid under the spare bed; I wanna see what you got in the garage!

touchingcloth wrote:Because there are elements of the genome that humans and gorillas share, that are also shared by chimps (and if we find elements that are shared by humans and gorillas we know that they must be shared by chimps if it is true that all 3 species share common ancestors and that the human line diverged from that of gorillas before chimps). The same holds true as you add in other apes in the order form which the diverged from humans (or vice versa depending on how you look at it).

Yet there are no fossils of transitional forms, nothing that seems to be inbetween gorilla and chimp, or inbetween gorilla and human. That would be hard direct evidence for macroevolution rather than just the implication of likeness and descent. The lackthereof is hard direct evidence against it.

Someguy20 wrote:Yet there are no fossils of transitional forms, nothing that seems to be inbetween gorilla and chimp, or inbetween gorilla and human. That would be hard direct evidence for macroevolution rather than just the implication of likeness and descent. The lackthereof is hard direct evidence against it.

Sure, there are gaps in the fossil record. But, if this were a valid argument against evolution (it's not), science would never be able to "win"! If we found a fossil of an X-Z transition creature, Y, the argument would then become: "Ah, but there's been no example found of a Y-Z transitional form!"

In fact, there are plenty of fossil intermediaries in existence (Australopithecus africanus, for example, in the case of human evolution). Just because we don't have the one specific one you care to mention, doesn't put the entire theory in jeopardy.

ManOfScience wrote:In fact, there are plenty of fossil intermediaries in existence (Australopithecus africanus, for example, in the case of human evolution).

ManOfScience,
I am an evolutionist as regards of a possible and plausible evolution. In the case of Australopithecus africanus, for example, to me, and this is my point of view, it is a case of animalic-monkey evolution, not a human evolution. Cause this last one evolution is still where reside the missing link.

ManOfScience wrote:Just because we don't have the one specific one you care to mention, doesn't put the entire theory in jeopardy.

You are right at this point, and thus, still being a theory with a missing link, can you argue that the missing link could very well be part of a supranatural theory? That human counciousness (ying and yang, right or wrong, sin and vitue, etc.) may have been something else than from the evolution process?

Zebulon