Evidence for God from Science

Perhaps I'll start another thread sometime for more on-topic discussions. To clarify, I guess you could say I have my own religion, in the broadest of terms. I just don't need anyone to tell me I'm right to believe.

If you have to disprove a religion to reject it, then we should all believe in every religion we've ever been exposed to. For instance, please disprove ancient Japanese ancestor-spirit worship.

And I don't consider myself above Christ. I value no religion above any other (OK, within reason. the WBC and Satanists don't get any respect from me). I honestly don't think anyone is superior to anyone else on the basis of their religion alone. I'll leave at that before I write a novel haha.

Ivellious wrote:I'm not saying church is always a bad thing, in fact in most small circumstances it's more a good social support group than materialistic. I just don't feel like it is necessary to have a church, a clearly identified religious preference, or a list of traditions and protocols to prove the validity of my spirituality.

I totally agree with you, we don't need a building or "pomp" and ceremony the only thing we need is Christ and God.

Dan

Well, if we are ok with saying that cats are related and dogs are related and so on...According to how scientists have put together the phylogenetic tree for apes, the Great Apes are both the descendants of chimpanzees and of humans, albeit via different tree branches, so to speak. We are essentially distantly related cousins with a common ancestor in the Great Apes. It's essentially the same type of relationship between different varieties of cats or dogs. At some point in history, two separate species diverged from the apes, one becoming the "homo" family and the other chimpanzees.

What is the evidence to the contrary, other than a presupposition of humans not being related to anything?

You do understand that drawing a line is not evidence? The facts are that you have extinct species, and living species. That is testable and observable. Then you have some man made pictures speculating on where tree limbs should be drawn. The limbs are not evidence.

No, but those lines are drawn based on evidence. Scientists don't just draw up lines arbitrarily like politicians draw voting districts.

I'm sure that you have faith that this is the case. So, you've handled that evidence for yourself? Or are you placing your faith in it?

I certainly have not read every paper on the subject, but I have extensively studied the evidence for and against evolution. I have not taken a biological anthropology class yet, so I haven't studied the scientific origin of homo sapiens in great depth, but I can tell you that the fossil record, geographic data, and genetic studies of primates (humans included) are the main pieces of supporting evidence for the construction of a phylogenetic tree for humans and our ancestors.

Ivellious,

but I can tell you that the fossil record, geographic data, and genetic studies of primates (humans included) are the main pieces of supporting evidence for the construction of a phylogenetic tree for humans and our ancestors.

Then you know that trees built by morphology and trees built by DNA do not agree.
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/9/5003.f ... 39a924d3ae
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 084304.htm

Ivellious wrote:Ummmmm...

For the record, Gman, I am not at all opposed to the idea that God might have used evolution as a means to bring about life as it is on Earth, no more opposed to the idea that God used the laws of physics to keep things from flying out of our atmosphere. Also, neanderthals aren't really a piece of evidence that people use against God, to my knowledge. I think it's more that religious people take neanderthals and other human-like organisms as some kind of offense to creationism.

Ivellious,
As someone who believes in old-earth creationism, I personally don't take offense to Neanderthals. There was some reason they were created, so it wouldn't be logical for me to think of them as an nuisance in the creation plan.

I'm still reading everyone's posts, just trying to wrap my mind around all of this.

I certainly have not read every paper on the subject, but I have extensively studied the evidence for and against evolution. I have not taken a biological anthropology class yet, so I haven't studied the scientific origin of homo sapiens in great depth, but I can tell you that the fossil record, geographic data, and genetic studies of primates (humans included) are the main pieces of supporting evidence for the construction of a phylogenetic tree for humans and our ancestors.

Well there you go. Your position is biased with a common question begging fallacy. You say, "Genetic studies of primates (humans included)," which presumes what you are attempting to prove. That humans and chimps are blood relatives.
-Why are humans and chimps related? Because they are both primates.
-Why are they both considered primates? Because they are relatives, of course.

I wonder how much 'extensive study' you have given to understanding just how much this type of fallacious reasoning pervades Darwinian evolutionary theory.

Studying the case for evolution is really a meaningless statement, as much of what you call proof of evolution (Darwinism) is the EXACT same thing I would call proof of evolution (change). Natural selection, gene drift and mutation. All testable and observable.

I've been a part of several threads regarding the fossil record, and I've gone up against people who have studied the anthropolgy. The evidence is weaker than milk toast. It formulated on this same kind of question begging, biased presumption, and fossils that don't have anything written on them saying, "Hello, i'm a relative of modern man." Evidence is artistically manipulated and arranged based on an ideological starting point. Archeological digs are funded and lead with the pre-determined position to FIND evidence for Darwinism. And since you have studied material based in all these things, forgive me if I don't see your earnest endeavors as carrying much weight.
I can say with certainty that you are not handling raw data. You are not studying evidence, but conclusions. If you think otherwise, then please provide proofs.