Evidence for God from Science

@reactionary,
I'm not about to type a term paper on evolution, I do not care about it that much. I've explained where I see issues in OEC, and evolution in all honestly has plenty of scientific backing. Perhaps if it said in Genesis to interpret everything literally I would not have this issue.

And where do you see fault in evolution? You let your faith block your view of science instead of integrating the two. Try reading it from a neutral perspective.

Just because I want to believe something reactionary does not mean I will convince myself that it is true or untrue.

-Add on- good answer on why no more animals created

Reactionary, you do realize this link you posted is from one of those, ahem, yec websites.

RickD wrote:Reactionary, you do realize this link you posted is from one of those, ahem, yec websites.

Yes, I'm aware of that... There's nothing explicitly YEC-ish in the article though, right?

Murray, I'll respond to you tomorrow, it's past midnight over here.

Alright reactionary, have a tighty nighty

RickD wrote:
Reactionary, you do realize this link you posted is from one of those, ahem, yec websites.


Yes, I'm aware of that... There's nothing explicitly YEC-ish in the article though, right?

I saw one illustration was by john Morris. That name just strikes a certain nerve with me. He's one of the reasons why I jumped off the YEC ship.

OK, let's continue...

Murray wrote:I've read into YEC, but you do not see me believing that. I still read into OEC but I do not believe that, I've read into gap creationism yet I do not believe that.....

And when did I discuss the manner of souls, thoughts ect...
I'm pretty sold on that being supernatural in a sense, but I fail to see logic of any level of "God used what existed(dust of the ground), to form the physical part of man".

Why not? Why do you find it unusual that God would use the same elements present in the ground to create man? Even science shows that human body physically doesn't consist of anything that can't be found in the Earth.

Murray wrote:Certain things cannot be explained, such as the existence of life, by scientific means; but our creation shows evidence of a scientific explanation (evolution).
Science does not explain the resurrection of Jesus, but does that mean we should ignore science? Some thing can be explained unlike the resurrection, and our creation is certainly one that may be compatible with scientific explanation.

Scientific explanation? I'd most of all be interested to see the true explanation. We don't know how God created as we weren't around to observe, and that's exactly what science is all about - observation and experimentation, and evolution has not been observed. Only conclusions were drawn from the fossil record, which contains many inconsistencies that stand in the way of the evolutionary explanation. Making up just-so stories about fish walking out of water, is not science.

Murray wrote:@reactionary,
I'm not about to type a term paper on evolution, I do not care about it that much. I've explained where I see issues in OEC, and evolution in all honestly has plenty of scientific backing. Perhaps if it said in Genesis to interpret everything literally I would not have this issue.

If I interpreted the Genesis literally, then obviously I'd be a YEC.

Murray wrote:And where do you see fault in evolution? You let your faith block your view of science instead of integrating the two. Try reading it from a neutral perspective.

Just because I want to believe something reactionary does not mean I will convince myself that it is true or untrue.

So, you're suggesting that I'm deliberately deluding myself? Thanks.

It's hard to find a neutral perspective, because humans are biased beings by nature, but I've seen much more intellectual honesty from the ID and OEC proponents. Most evolutionary articles contain ifs, maybes, and unfalsifiable stories. That's, among other issues, where I see the fault in evolution - no concrete evidence, biased research, arrogance, etc. I'm a concrete person who demands concrete evidence to become convinced in something. Catchphrases like "creationists don't believe in science" make no appeal to me, I'm convinced by arguments, not by common beliefs, or ad hominems thrown to discredit the proponents of the opposite view.

Murray, since you started to play a psychologist with me, let me tell you my opinion. You adhere to evolution because you don't have the courage to stand up and say "No, I don't believe in evolution as I don't see the evidence." You don't want to depart from the common beliefs, forgetting that those change over time, and that a true free-thinker examines the evidence and holds to what seems most reasonable. You seem to talk constantly about "science" and how evolution is "scientific", but you don't seem to understand it at all - you said that macroevolution was a stepping stone away from "microevolution", showing that you fell for the "bait and switch", as briefly explained in this (YEC) article I posted. So, I conclude that your belief in evolution is a result of appeal to common belief.

No fossil evidence?

So I suppose finding a whale that insanely resembles a antelope with 4 legs in Pakistan is not evidence? no It's just a coincidence just like every other bit of overwhelming evidence.

Instead of talkig about tiny flaws in evolution as OEC love to do, let's talk about proof for ID. Do fossil records indicate ID? What indicates it?

So I suppose finding a whale that insanely resembles a antelope with 4 legs in Pakistan is not evidence? no It's just a coincidence just like every other bit of overwhelming evidence.

Murray, have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe God created that animal to look exactly like it did. If an ancient animal is found somewhere, that just proves the animal existed. It doesn't prove it existed that way because it evolved into that. Use the logical side of your brain, Murray. Think. Just because evolutionists take the evidence, and say something, that doesn't mean it's true.

I do not think darwin was a genius, I think he came up with a great idea that people built support around because it sounded good to them.

But you guys are doing the same with ID, you are building support around an idea because it sounds good to you

I cringe (not even kidding) when I hear or read evolution, I do not like it, but I see it as being a good explanation of our appearance on this earth.

Good job you got me thinking about OEC again, your like that pesky little devil(or angel) on my shoulder

Murray wrote: But you guys are doing the same with ID, you are building support around an idea because it sounds good to you

ID is basically inference to design, and it is thoroughly scientific. If it were not testable then why do evolutionists spend so much time trying to disprove ID?

Murray wrote:I cringe (not even kidding) when I hear or read evolution, I do not like it, but I see it as being a good explanation of our appearance on this earth.

What do you mean by 'evolution,' Murray?

Macro danny

Bro, as you yourself have acknowledged, albeit slightly paradoxically:

Murray wrote: While macro evolution is not proven, it seems to be the most scientific provable theory out there.

You have no good for accepting macroevolution.

Instead of talkig about tiny flaws in evolution as OEC love to do, let's talk about proof for ID. Do fossil records indicate ID? What indicates it?

Do you even know what ID postulates? From that question is doesn't seem so.

your right august bad question :P

But you guys are doing the same with ID, you are building support around an idea because it sounds good to you

Murray, I've studied Old Earth, and Young Earth Creationism. I've also studied a little of Darwinian evolution. What Ive found is that YEC can fit into a literal biblical interpretation, but it fails the test of science. Naturalistic evolution fails the biblical test miserably, and is not proven scientifically. OEC passes the biblical interpretation test, and passes the test of science as well. The only other system that I can see that possibly passes both tests, is Theistic evolution. I just see Progressive Creationism(OEC) as passing both tests with less problems than Theistic Evolution.

I cringe (not even kidding) when I hear or read evolution, I do not like it, but I see it as being a good explanation of our appearance on this earth.

I don't see it as a good explanation, as you see it. However, as I said before, I believe it fails the test of the bible, miserably.

Good job you got me thinking about OEC again, your like that pesky little devil(or angel) on my shoulder

Murray, I'm just trying to get you to see that if God inspired the bible, and God created the universe, there should be no contradiction between the "two books". The book of the bible, and the book of creation.
Any system that fails either, or both tests, isn't a valid system, and needs to be disregarded.
Keep in mind, this is just my conclusion, after studying, AND praying for God's guidance.
If you come to a different conclusion after prayer and studying, then, at least you came about your belief honestly.
I think you would really enjoy "More Than A Theory" by Hugh Ross. It lays out a testable model for creation.