Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:It doesn't talk about origins of life which is kind of a different subject "Abiogenesis". Evolution is, how life changed once it was there and that is what I was talking about.

I can see how my wording may have seemed a bit misleading, though.

Ok, that's what I thought you were saying.

Since you wrote it, are you saying you believe abiogenesis explains the origins of life? Or did you just throw that out there as one example of a belief of origins?

I think God is the source of all life...the fact that I see evolution as not something that God wouldn't do, I see no problems with abiogenesis as a hypothesis either. Because even if chemical processes turned first non living matter to amino acids and so on and so forth, its anti creation all the way, but then so is evolution and I am already in that camp. The difference is though that the atheist or agnostic may not care whether there is God at the end of the rainbow or not but I just think that its easier for a lot of them to not imagine God as opposed to imagine God. I on the other hand can not see how God could not be at the end of the chain, someone has to be and that can't be the eternal universe.

Anyway to your question, I don't think abiogenesis right now can explain the complete origin of life, much of it is speculation, some of it is based on evidence and no one has a proof. So that is why its a proper hypothesis rather than a proper belief, as I think you over-generalized it, though this is a minor point in the conversation.

I do think that other models/beliefs could be true too, there is not enough data or evidence to ascertain for certain which one is entirely true.

Stu wrote:

neo-x wrote:It doesn't talk about origins of life which is kind of a different subject "Abiogenesis". Evolution is, how life changed once it was there and that is what I was talking about.

I can see how my wording may have seemed a bit misleading, though.

So what is your take on the origins of life?

I don't think I have made up my mind on that...I am not entirely convinced on the Genesis story which is quite the opposite of what evidence tells us...and abiogenesis is still lacking in many ways. I do think that God is at the back of it all, just not sure how he did it, as I said before the Genesis story is lacking on that front too.

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:It doesn't talk about origins of life which is kind of a different subject "Abiogenesis". Evolution is, how life changed once it was there and that is what I was talking about.

I can see how my wording may have seemed a bit misleading, though.

Ok, that's what I thought you were saying.

Since you wrote it, are you saying you believe abiogenesis explains the origins of life? Or did you just throw that out there as one example of a belief of origins?

I think God is the source of all life...the fact that I see evolution as not something that God wouldn't do, I see no problems with abiogenesis as a hypothesis either. Because even if chemical processes turned first non living matter to amino acids and so on and so forth, its anti creation all the way, but then so is evolution and I am already in that camp. The difference is though that the atheist or agnostic may not care whether there is God at the end of the rainbow or not but I just think that its easier for a lot of them to not imagine God as opposed to imagine God. I on the other hand can not see how God could not be at the end of the chain, someone has to be and that can't be the eternal universe.

Anyway to your question, I don't think abiogenesis right now can explain the complete origin of life, much of it is speculation, some of it is based on evidence and no one has a proof. So that is why its a proper hypothesis rather than a proper belief, as I think you over-generalized it, though this is a minor point in the conversation.

I do think that other models/beliefs could be true too, there is not enough data or evidence to ascertain for certain which one is entirely true.

Ok. That clarifies it. I'm glad you explained it for me. You originally implied(at least I read it that way) that abiogenesis explained the origins of life. Now I understand that you're saying abiogenesis could have been the way God created life. It may sound trivial, but to me it's the difference between God being the origin of life, and non-life being the origin of life.

Thanks for clearing that up.

neo-x wrote:Hi, can any one suggest a good beginners book to understand the evolutionary theory?

I would appreciate a book which does not delve into, why ID or creationism is wrong, I don't want any philosophical takes on it. I would like a book which a student would be reading.

I have not read every post here. However I think Dawkins "An Ancestors Tale" is an easy read although long winded. The link to an online copy of the book is below. Here Dawkins tells the story and throws in some discussion around fossils and genomics. By the way, Dawkins supports researchers that suggest Lucy is a chimp ancestor, regardless of all the humanity many researchers have attributed to her, see below. Dawkins states he will run with the majority, whom at the time thought the chimp/human common ancestor was chimp like. Of course the latest evo thinking is that the human/chimp common ancestor was not chimp like, at all.

"The Blind Cave Fish's Tale, which is about Dollo's Law, will reassure us that this last is not the case. There is nothing in principle wrong with Theory 4. Chimpanzees really could have passed through a more humanoid, bipedal stage before reverting to quadrupedal apehood. As it happens, this very suggestion has been revived by John Gribbin and Jeremy Cherfas, in their two books, The Monkey Puzzle and The First Chimpanzee. They go so far as to suggest that chimpanzees are descended from gracile australopithecines (like Lucy), and gorillas from robust australopithecines (like �Dear Boy�). For such an in-your-face radical suggestion, they make a surprisingly good case. It centres on an interpretation of human evolution which has long been widely accepted, although not without controversy: people are juvenile apes who have become sexually mature. Or, putting it another way, we are like chimpanzees who have never grown up"

http://macroevolution.narod.ru/ancestor ... or.htm#018

As you read any evolutionary material, let's not forget that some organism had to be closer to mankind genetically than any other. We share 60% genes with a banana, and chimps are only close to mankind genetically if one forgets to account for the multitude of missing chunks of genetic material, insertions in both species, assumed multitudes of genetic rearrangements and lots of excuses/assumptions around horizontal gene transfer.

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:It doesn't talk about origins of life which is kind of a different subject "Abiogenesis". Evolution is, how life changed once it was there and that is what I was talking about.

I can see how my wording may have seemed a bit misleading, though.

Ok, that's what I thought you were saying.

Since you wrote it, are you saying you believe abiogenesis explains the origins of life? Or did you just throw that out there as one example of a belief of origins?

I think God is the source of all life...the fact that I see evolution as not something that God wouldn't do, I see no problems with abiogenesis as a hypothesis either. Because even if chemical processes turned first non living matter to amino acids and so on and so forth, its anti creation all the way, but then so is evolution and I am already in that camp. The difference is though that the atheist or agnostic may not care whether there is God at the end of the rainbow or not but I just think that its easier for a lot of them to not imagine God as opposed to imagine God. I on the other hand can not see how God could not be at the end of the chain, someone has to be and that can't be the eternal universe.

Anyway to your question, I don't think abiogenesis right now can explain the complete origin of life, much of it is speculation, some of it is based on evidence and no one has a proof. So that is why its a proper hypothesis rather than a proper belief, as I think you over-generalized it, though this is a minor point in the conversation.

I do think that other models/beliefs could be true too, there is not enough data or evidence to ascertain for certain which one is entirely true.

Ok. That clarifies it. I'm glad you explained it for me. You originally implied(at least I read it that way) that abiogenesis explained the origins of life. Now I understand that you're saying abiogenesis could have been the way God created life. It may sound trivial, but to me it's the difference between God being the origin of life, and non-life being the origin of life.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Theories around abiogenesis have evolved. From the DNA/RNA first conundrum to the latest in Proteins first hypothesis. Indeed the scientific establishment have excised abiogenesis away from evolutionary theory.

All that has ever been observed in nature or the lab is that proteins are unable to exist without a host. Proteins deteriorate when taken out of the host. Conclusion.... Life appears, by necessity, to have been created as a complex factory of reproduction without anything other than the completed host being created first. Of course this conclusion, as obvious as it is, will be strongly argued and contested.

It is impossible to 'prove' how God created. God could have guided something akin to the evolutionary process. I tend to think observation supports the instant creation of life forms. I hope in the resurrection we get to know for sure.

I wonder what exactly is meant by / is the basis for saying "proteins deteriorate.."
and, as for the completed complex host, what information about a bright line distinction between living and non living is entered into this.

Despite how society is bombarded with evolution and despite how evolution is taught as scientific truth the fact is evolution is believed by faith to those who accept it even though they deny it. Here is what is going on they are using variations in reproduction and adaptation as evidence for evolution and this evidence is used to cover macro evolution for which there is no evidence for.Without evidence for macro evolution you have no evolution happening.Now since we Christians already have the bible to believe by faith we do not need two faiths and so evolution should be rejected. Do not take the easy way out and agree with evolution and try to make it somehow fit evolution when evolution is believed by faith.You must take the time to actually examine the evidence for evolution to realize it is faith based science and has caused many to doubt God's word even for Christians who have accepted evolution. The biblical gap theory proves you wrong about evolution and proves God's word true about there being a former world on this earth with different life in it than this world God created do not let the evidence in evolution trick you because it proves it NOT evolution. Satan is using evolution to cover up what the real evidence for an old earth the fossils,coal,oil,etc really prove.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Despite how society is bombarded with evolution and despite how evolution is taught as scientific truth the fact is evolution is believed by faith to those who accept it even though they deny it. Here is what is going on they are using variations in reproduction and adaptation as evidence for evolution and this evidence is used to cover macro evolution for which there is no evidence for.Without evidence for macro evolution you have no evolution happening.Now since we Christians already have the bible to believe by faith we do not need two faiths and so evolution should be rejected. Do not take the easy way out and agree with evolution and try to make it somehow fit evolution when evolution is believed by faith.You must take the time to actually examine the evidence for evolution to realize it is faith based science and has caused many to doubt God's word even for Christians who have accepted evolution. The biblical gap theory proves you wrong about evolution and proves God's word true about there being a former world on this earth with different life in it than this world God created do not let the evidence in evolution trick you because it proves it NOT evolution. Satan is using evolution to cover up what the real evidence for an old earth the fossils,coal,oil,etc really prove.

Satan is using evolution? This kind of thinking makes me sad.

Oivay.
Saying that Satan is using evolution is just plain silly.
Considering how many evolutionists BELIEVE in Christ and have Him as their saviour.
Now, an argument could be made for natural selection, PERHAPS, but even that is a HUGE stretch.

The issue of evolution is NOT IF it happens, we know it does and it has been proven a fact. The issue seems to be what drives it:
Is it purely random with NO PLAN whatsoever.
Is it random and somehow nature has a "selection process" that makes for the most beneficial mutations to be passed on.
Is it somehow controlled ( to whatever extent).
Is it controlled by God.

Remember, without the politics, evolution is simply change over time and when one species "changes enough" over time that they can no longer mate (successfully) with the original group of species they came from, then a new species has emerged.

PaulSacramento wrote:Oivay.
Saying that Satan is using evolution is just plain silly.
Considering how many evolutionists BELIEVE in Christ and have Him as their saviour.
Now, an argument could be made for natural selection, PERHAPS, but even that is a HUGE stretch.

The issue of evolution is NOT IF it happens, we know it does and it has been proven a fact. The issue seems to be what drives it:
Is it purely random with NO PLAN whatsoever.
Is it random and somehow nature has a "selection process" that makes for the most beneficial mutations to be passed on.
Is it somehow controlled ( to whatever extent).
Is it controlled by God.

Remember, without the politics, evolution is simply change over time and when one species "changes enough" over time that they can no longer mate (successfully) with the original group of species they came from, then a new species has emerged.

Sorry but you're wrong everything I have said about evolution is true.There is no evidence you can show that will demonstrate life evolves and because God created the life in this world "after their kind"the life in this world could not have evolved dinosaurs did not evolve to be the birds in this world and because you have no evidence to demonstrate life evolves there is no reason to belief life evolves by faith.What the evidence proves is the earth is old and there was a different world on this earth with different life in it than the life in this world.The dinosaurs lived in the former world until Lucifer and a third of the angels rebelled and God poured out judgment and all life in it died until God restored the earth and created this world and the life in it,this is why it says "after their kind" and since you cannot demonstrate that life evolves the gap theory and God's word is proven true about the former world.You will find God restoring things all throughout the bible including us through salvation in Jesus.God bless you " Let God be true and every man a liar."

abelcainsbrother wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Oivay.
Saying that Satan is using evolution is just plain silly.
Considering how many evolutionists BELIEVE in Christ and have Him as their saviour.
Now, an argument could be made for natural selection, PERHAPS, but even that is a HUGE stretch.

The issue of evolution is NOT IF it happens, we know it does and it has been proven a fact. The issue seems to be what drives it:
Is it purely random with NO PLAN whatsoever.
Is it random and somehow nature has a "selection process" that makes for the most beneficial mutations to be passed on.
Is it somehow controlled ( to whatever extent).
Is it controlled by God.

Remember, without the politics, evolution is simply change over time and when one species "changes enough" over time that they can no longer mate (successfully) with the original group of species they came from, then a new species has emerged.

Sorry but you're wrong everything I have said about evolution is true.There is no evidence you can show that will demonstrate life evolves and because God created the life in this world "after their kind"the life in this world could not have evolved dinosaurs did not evolve to be the birds in this world and because you have no evidence to demonstrate life evolves there is no reason to belief life evolves by faith.What the evidence proves is the earth is old and there was a different world on this earth with different life in it than the life in this world.The dinosaurs lived in the former world until Lucifer and a third of the angels rebelled and God poured out judgment and all life in it died until God restored the earth and created this world and the life in it,this is why it says "after their kind" and since you cannot demonstrate that life evolves the gap theory and God's word is proven true about the former world.You will find God restoring things all throughout the bible including us through salvation in Jesus.God bless you " Let God be true and every man a liar."

Oivay x 2!

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Oivay.
Saying that Satan is using evolution is just plain silly.
Considering how many evolutionists BELIEVE in Christ and have Him as their saviour.
Now, an argument could be made for natural selection, PERHAPS, but even that is a HUGE stretch.

The issue of evolution is NOT IF it happens, we know it does and it has been proven a fact. The issue seems to be what drives it:
Is it purely random with NO PLAN whatsoever.
Is it random and somehow nature has a "selection process" that makes for the most beneficial mutations to be passed on.
Is it somehow controlled ( to whatever extent).
Is it controlled by God.

Remember, without the politics, evolution is simply change over time and when one species "changes enough" over time that they can no longer mate (successfully) with the original group of species they came from, then a new species has emerged.

Sorry but you're wrong everything I have said about evolution is true.There is no evidence you can show that will demonstrate life evolves and because God created the life in this world "after their kind"the life in this world could not have evolved dinosaurs did not evolve to be the birds in this world and because you have no evidence to demonstrate life evolves there is no reason to belief life evolves by faith.What the evidence proves is the earth is old and there was a different world on this earth with different life in it than the life in this world.The dinosaurs lived in the former world until Lucifer and a third of the angels rebelled and God poured out judgment and all life in it died until God restored the earth and created this world and the life in it,this is why it says "after their kind" and since you cannot demonstrate that life evolves the gap theory and God's word is proven true about the former world.You will find God restoring things all throughout the bible including us through salvation in Jesus.God bless you " Let God be true and every man a liar."

Oivay x 2!

Merry Christmas everybody Drop of Lucifer for you.

https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=-zsIwUjMtmg

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Despite how society is bombarded with evolution and despite how evolution is taught as scientific truth the fact is evolution is believed by faith to those who accept it even though they deny it. Here is what is going on they are using variations in reproduction and adaptation as evidence for evolution and this evidence is used to cover macro evolution for which there is no evidence for.Without evidence for macro evolution you have no evolution happening.Now since we Christians already have the bible to believe by faith we do not need two faiths and so evolution should be rejected. Do not take the easy way out and agree with evolution and try to make it somehow fit evolution when evolution is believed by faith.You must take the time to actually examine the evidence for evolution to realize it is faith based science and has caused many to doubt God's word even for Christians who have accepted evolution. The biblical gap theory proves you wrong about evolution and proves God's word true about there being a former world on this earth with different life in it than this world God created do not let the evidence in evolution trick you because it proves it NOT evolution. Satan is using evolution to cover up what the real evidence for an old earth the fossils,coal,oil,etc really prove.

Satan is using evolution? This kind of thinking makes me sad.

Can I ask why it makes you sad? Even if you don't know or understand or accept the gap theory like I do the bible clearly teaches us that Satan is the father of lies and he deceives us.It has happened to me before and it can happen to you.perhaps the gap theory is true like I believe it is then it would be true that those who accepted evolution would be wrong and deceived about the evidence in this earth.You can choose to look at the evidence in the earth and interpret the evidence in it from an evolution perspective or you could look at it from a gap theory perspective like I do.Regardless evolution has not been proven
true and it is faith based science and I would reject evolution based on the evidence I have seen even if I was not a Christian.It is a shame it is taught as the truth like it is when not one scientist has ever proven or demonstrated life evolves like they teach it.It is not much different than a preacher preaching about Jesus and salvation.

I deal with atheists all the time about evolution and I have learned about the evidence for evolution from them.evolutionists are really tricky because they'll show you a virus and tell you it evolved but this is not true look closely and you'll see the virus just adapted to survive a hostile environment and remains and always will be a virus so you are being tricked with this evidence when they tell you it evolved.

Do you know the difference between life adapting and life evolving? Why are they using this as evidence for evolution? Oh and no natural selection has been observed either because even after the virus adapts to survive it will remain a virus and never evolve and natural selection has no effect on it.In every case of evidence for evolution you either see variation in reproduction which is not life evolving,animal breeders were well aware of this long before Charles Darwin or you will see life adapting like Eskimos who adapted to live in the extreme cold and yet again no life evolving or natural selection,so their evidence in Noway proves or demonstrates life evolves yet look at all the people who have been tricked when based on their own evidence it proves dinosaurs could not evolve to be birds.So they tell you birds are dinosaurs.

Also it is not always true that when life can no longer breed it evolved either for their are examples where they can still breed even when it is said they evolved.

Oivay x 3

You are conflating the Theory of Evolution with any and all evolution.

As Paul stated earlier, evolution simply means change over time. So essentially, there's no difference between something adapting and evolving.

If you don't believe in Godless naturalism, fine. Just don't lump every kind of evolution together with Godless naturalism.

There are plenty of kinds if evolution(change) that are observable.