Evidence for God from Science

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Audie wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote: Atheists are very hard to reach but I like the challenge myself,it is not for every Christian as God uses us in different ways but I actually like the challenge and I think you have to,they have their talking points down and some know the bible better than Christians and they twist the bible all out of context to try to show the bible is wrong and how evil God is but if you are a Christian strong in faith and know the word of God well I think it is good to be challenged about what we believe and you get better at defending your faith the more you do it.When I first started debating atheists my whole approach was wrong but over time I've gotten better and it has actually strengthened me because it requires one to research things which I like to do anyway as I'm a non-fiction reader who loves to do research to learn something new but don't be fooled atheism is very persuasive and brings a formidable opponent to our faith and what we believe and we have lost some of the faith to their tactics.

The atheists
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=phtP73p5_F0

Always good to see more stereotypes. Have you heard that all Chinese have buck teeth, and talk funny?

Yea and all Aussies are sun kissed beach bums, who are rippling with muscles. Well in my case that is actually true.

Im emigrating right away. Is there room for a thick-glasses nerd?

I think you might be bitterly disappointed, but you are sure welcome, we are a cultural melting pot here.

Oh i know its not all like outback steak house ads, or crocodile dundee.
My destiny is tied to Hong Kong and the USA anyway.

But I think I'd like Oz. Alice or Coober Pedy, maybe Darwin.

Im strictly a big city girl.

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote: Atheists are very hard to reach but I like the challenge myself,it is not for every Christian as God uses us in different ways but I actually like the challenge and I think you have to,they have their talking points down and some know the bible better than Christians and they twist the bible all out of context to try to show the bible is wrong and how evil God is but if you are a Christian strong in faith and know the word of God well I think it is good to be challenged about what we believe and you get better at defending your faith the more you do it.When I first started debating atheists my whole approach was wrong but over time I've gotten better and it has actually strengthened me because it requires one to research things which I like to do anyway as I'm a non-fiction reader who loves to do research to learn something new but don't be fooled atheism is very persuasive and brings a formidable opponent to our faith and what we believe and we have lost some of the faith to their tactics.

The atheists
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=phtP73p5_F0

Always good to see more stereotypes. Have you heard that all Chinese have buck teeth, and talk funny?

The new atheists have a motto "The internet,the place where religion comes to die."

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote: Atheists are very hard to reach but I like the challenge myself,it is not for every Christian as God uses us in different ways but I actually like the challenge and I think you have to,they have their talking points down and some know the bible better than Christians and they twist the bible all out of context to try to show the bible is wrong and how evil God is but if you are a Christian strong in faith and know the word of God well I think it is good to be challenged about what we believe and you get better at defending your faith the more you do it.When I first started debating atheists my whole approach was wrong but over time I've gotten better and it has actually strengthened me because it requires one to research things which I like to do anyway as I'm a non-fiction reader who loves to do research to learn something new but don't be fooled atheism is very persuasive and brings a formidable opponent to our faith and what we believe and we have lost some of the faith to their tactics.

The atheists
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=phtP73p5_F0

Always good to see more stereotypes. Have you heard that all Chinese have buck teeth, and talk funny?

The new atheists have a motto "The internet,the place where religion comes to die."

Alright! One negative stereotype wasnt enough, so add another.

And not one "Christian" seems to see any call to speak against a "brother" who does so.

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote: Atheists are very hard to reach but I like the challenge myself,it is not for every Christian as God uses us in different ways but I actually like the challenge and I think you have to,they have their talking points down and some know the bible better than Christians and they twist the bible all out of context to try to show the bible is wrong and how evil God is but if you are a Christian strong in faith and know the word of God well I think it is good to be challenged about what we believe and you get better at defending your faith the more you do it.When I first started debating atheists my whole approach was wrong but over time I've gotten better and it has actually strengthened me because it requires one to research things which I like to do anyway as I'm a non-fiction reader who loves to do research to learn something new but don't be fooled atheism is very persuasive and brings a formidable opponent to our faith and what we believe and we have lost some of the faith to their tactics.

The atheists
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=phtP73p5_F0

Always good to see more stereotypes. Have you heard that all Chinese have buck teeth, and talk funny?

The new atheists have a motto "The internet,the place where religion comes to die."

Alright! One negative stereotype wasnt enough, so add another.

And not one "Christian" seems to see any call to speak against a "brother" who does so.

I have spoken against ACB's actions many times in many different threads, you can only say it so many times and have it fall on deaf ears, I don't agree with his attitude but there is no point repeating myself ad nauseum and I think everyone else feels the same, the best thing to do Audie is turn the other cheek and ignore his comments, don't let him get under your skin, that's exactly what he wants.

Love conquers all, just love him and leave him.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote: Atheists are very hard to reach but I like the challenge myself,it is not for every Christian as God uses us in different ways but I actually like the challenge and I think you have to,they have their talking points down and some know the bible better than Christians and they twist the bible all out of context to try to show the bible is wrong and how evil God is but if you are a Christian strong in faith and know the word of God well I think it is good to be challenged about what we believe and you get better at defending your faith the more you do it.When I first started debating atheists my whole approach was wrong but over time I've gotten better and it has actually strengthened me because it requires one to research things which I like to do anyway as I'm a non-fiction reader who loves to do research to learn something new but don't be fooled atheism is very persuasive and brings a formidable opponent to our faith and what we believe and we have lost some of the faith to their tactics.

The atheists
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=phtP73p5_F0

Always good to see more stereotypes. Have you heard that all Chinese have buck teeth, and talk funny?

The new atheists have a motto "The internet,the place where religion comes to die."

Alright! One negative stereotype wasnt enough, so add another.

And not one "Christian" seems to see any call to speak against a "brother" who does so.

I have spoken against ACB's actions many times in many different threads, you can only say it so many times and have it fall on deaf ears, I don't agree with his attitude but there is no point repeating myself ad nauseum and I think everyone else feels the same, the best thing to do Audie is turn the other cheek and ignore his comments, don't let him get under your skin, that's exactly what he wants.

Love conquers all, just love him and leave him.

Thanks. I will seek to improve myself.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote: Atheists are very hard to reach but I like the challenge myself,it is not for every Christian as God uses us in different ways but I actually like the challenge and I think you have to,they have their talking points down and some know the bible better than Christians and they twist the bible all out of context to try to show the bible is wrong and how evil God is but if you are a Christian strong in faith and know the word of God well I think it is good to be challenged about what we believe and you get better at defending your faith the more you do it.When I first started debating atheists my whole approach was wrong but over time I've gotten better and it has actually strengthened me because it requires one to research things which I like to do anyway as I'm a non-fiction reader who loves to do research to learn something new but don't be fooled atheism is very persuasive and brings a formidable opponent to our faith and what we believe and we have lost some of the faith to their tactics.

The atheists
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=phtP73p5_F0

Always good to see more stereotypes. Have you heard that all Chinese have buck teeth, and talk funny?

The new atheists have a motto "The internet,the place where religion comes to die."

Alright! One negative stereotype wasnt enough, so add another.

And not one "Christian" seems to see any call to speak against a "brother" who does so.

I have spoken against ACB's actions many times in many different threads, you can only say it so many times and have it fall on deaf ears, I don't agree with his attitude but there is no point repeating myself ad nauseum and I think everyone else feels the same, the best thing to do Audie is turn the other cheek and ignore his comments, don't let him get under your skin, that's exactly what he wants.

Love conquers all, just love him and leave him.

My attitude is good but I do not believe what man says is true without evidence and you have never given evidence for evolution yet you believe it and get offended because others don't see it like you do.If I'm wrong you can prove me wrong with evidence but you can't and so it is easier to just feel like you do,I can back up what I believe with evidence and you should be able to too but I cannot make you change your mind,you can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink.You believe life evolves without evidence life evolves then have to doubt the bible which is not necessary.

AB, I am not going to debate anything with you, as it is plainly pointless.
I mentioned in another thread the value of knowing what one does not know, and not dismissing that about which one knows nothing.

I get the impression you believe you have studied long and hard about evolution, but what I see is that you know (next to) nothing.

The path of wisdom may lie before you but you most tread it. I do wish you well.

XM

Audie wrote:AB, I am not going to debate anything with you, as it is plainly pointless.
I mentioned in another thread the value of knowing what one does not know, and not dismissing that about which one knows nothing.

I get the impression you believe you have studied long and hard about evolution, but what I see is that you know (next to) nothing.

The path of wisdom may lie before you but you most tread it. I do wish you well.

XM

You misunderstand me or something but you shouldn't debate me unless you have evidence to back up what you believe is true,because I focus on evidence when discovering the truth or not.If you value the truth you'd do this too for it is a wise thing to do when researching different things.I have researched many things and I've learned you can't go wrong in whatever your researching if you focus on evidence to back up what is believed or taught.Most people get interested in something read a book about it and agree with everything the book says,or they'll read a book they disagree with and reject all of it,but I've learned that even a good book can have bad info in it and even the bad books can have good information in them,the important thing is to be able to pick out the good from the bad,regardless of what it might be about. If you lack evidence I'll pick up on it and point it out especially when it comes from man instead of God.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:AB, I am not going to debate anything with you, as it is plainly pointless.
I mentioned in another thread the value of knowing what one does not know, and not dismissing that about which one knows nothing.

I get the impression you believe you have studied long and hard about evolution, but what I see is that you know (next to) nothing.

The path of wisdom may lie before you but you most tread it. I do wish you well.

XM

You misunderstand me or something but you shouldn't debate me unless you have evidence to back up what you believe is true,because I focus on evidence when discovering the truth or not.If you value the truth you'd do this too for it is a wise thing to do when researching different things.I have researched many things and I've learned you can't go wrong in whatever your researching if you focus on evidence to back up what is believed or taught.Most people get interested in something read a book about it and agree with everything the book says,or they'll read a book they disagree with and reject all of it,but I've learned that even a good book can have bad info in it and even the bad books can have good information in them,the important thing is to be able to pick out the good from the bad,regardless of what it might be about. If you lack evidence I'll pick up on it and point it out especially when it comes from man instead of God.

I wonder what it is you consider "research".

Have you ever done any actual lab or field work? Advanced / upper level course work at an accredited University?

Ever read a research paper?

Where do you do your "research"?

What do you think is "evidence"? Just how you read the Bible?

Now, take this as you will, but I've no ill will toward you. Im just telling you what you make obvious.

Judging by how you write, you do not appear to have much formal education or language ability, so I doubt you would have much luck reading a formal research paper in geology, say.

I see no indication you have the capacity to offer an informed opinion on the validity of basic theory in geology and biology.

I dont doubt your sincerity, but you say things such as that there is no evidence for evolution. That is a bit like saying there is no evidence for the Roman Empire. I honestly do not know how it is possible to say such a thing without shriveling up like a salted slug, unless you actually, really-really do not know.


I cannot debate you on this. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Now please, no more. There is nowhere for this to go. You have not offered, and cannot offer datum point one to support your claims. I dont like to make any personal remarks, as I have done, but there is not much else for me to do, as everything you say about science is simply your own personal opinions.

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:AB, I am not going to debate anything with you, as it is plainly pointless.
I mentioned in another thread the value of knowing what one does not know, and not dismissing that about which one knows nothing.

I get the impression you believe you have studied long and hard about evolution, but what I see is that you know (next to) nothing.

The path of wisdom may lie before you but you most tread it. I do wish you well.

XM

You misunderstand me or something but you shouldn't debate me unless you have evidence to back up what you believe is true,because I focus on evidence when discovering the truth or not.If you value the truth you'd do this too for it is a wise thing to do when researching different things.I have researched many things and I've learned you can't go wrong in whatever your researching if you focus on evidence to back up what is believed or taught.Most people get interested in something read a book about it and agree with everything the book says,or they'll read a book they disagree with and reject all of it,but I've learned that even a good book can have bad info in it and even the bad books can have good information in them,the important thing is to be able to pick out the good from the bad,regardless of what it might be about. If you lack evidence I'll pick up on it and point it out especially when it comes from man instead of God.

I wonder what it is you consider "research".

Have you ever done any actual lab or field work? Advanced / upper level course work at an accredited University?

Ever read a research paper?

Where do you do your "research"?

What do you think is "evidence"? Just how you read the Bible?

Now, take this as you will, but I've no ill will toward you. Im just telling you what you make obvious.

Judging by how you write, you do not appear to have much formal education or language ability, so I doubt you would have much luck reading a formal research paper in geology, say.

I see no indication you have the capacity to offer an informed opinion on the validity of basic theory in geology and biology.

I dont doubt your sincerity, but you say things such as that there is no evidence for evolution. That is a bit like saying there is no evidence for the Roman Empire. I honestly do not know how it is possible to say such a thing without shriveling up like a salted slug, unless you actually, really-really do not know.


I cannot debate you on this. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Now please, no more. There is nowhere for this to go. You have not offered, and cannot offer datum point one to support your claims. I dont like to make any personal remarks, as I have done, but there is not much else for me to do, as everything you say about science is simply your own personal opinions.

Then produce scientific evidence life evolves then if you doubt me.I do not use all of them big scientific words that make it seem you know more than you let on.I bring it down to a level everybody can understand and when I say there is no scientific evidence life evolves,it is true and if you knew so much about science and the evidence you'd know it too.You can say it is my opinion but one thing you can't do is give scientific evidence life evolves,you must believe it based on faith and assumptions that variations in reproduction or life adapting leads to life evolving,there is no other way to look at it. I know the truth might hurt but you can handle it and shouldn't take it personal. You make it seem like you must be a scientist to know,but you don't all you've got to do is look at the evidence used as evidence and look for evidence life evolves.Be happy the truth will make you free.

when I say there is no scientific evidence life evolves,it is true and if you knew so much about science and the evidence you'd know it too

Audie, I'd like you to demonstrate the scientific evidence life evolves.

Microeveolution (Adaptation) is obviously true, this is not being disputed.

Please prove macroeveolution to us.
Please prove abiogenesis to us.

If you could do those two things, I would believe what you say. I have yet to see an authority you use to demonstrate these two issues that remain problematic.

If it can't be proven/demonstrated. What is you reasoning to believe macroeveolution and abiogenesis is true?

Mallz wrote:

when I say there is no scientific evidence life evolves,it is true and if you knew so much about science and the evidence you'd know it too

Audie, I'd like you to demonstrate the scientific evidence life evolves.

Microeveolution (Adaptation) is obviously true, this is not being disputed.

Please prove macroeveolution to us.
Please prove abiogenesis to us.

If you could do those two things, I would believe what you say. I have yet to see an authority you use to demonstrate these two issues that remain problematic.

If it can't be proven/demonstrated. What is you reasoning to believe macroeveolution and abiogenesis is true?

Abe of course simply stated a falsehood in the form of an argument from ignorance. Well, actually he got in two fibs.

Abio is problematic in that there is little data as to what may have happened.

Take into account, that there is no known clear distinction between living and non living things. There are borderline organisms like virus and prions.
All manner of complex organic molecules self organize under a variety of conditions. Chemical reactions take very fast. There
are uncountable trillions of molecules in a drop of water. With 330 million cubic miles of ocean and a bunch of time under many different conditions, anything that can happen will happen.

Its not problematic for evolution tho. Why even bring it up?

Some common understanding is called for here . You are using some terms, I wonder what
you may mean by them.
The only word you used that has any particular currency in biological science is "adaptation", and biologists would not
agree with your usage.

What do you mean, "adaptation"? Specifically, the genetics of adaptation. Is there some "so far but no further" you are thinking of.

What bright line distinction do you see between "micro" and "macro", the exact line where one leaves off and the other begins?

Proof is something for math or distilled spirits.

Abio. is not a part of ToE. Likewise, the origin of speech is not a part of the study of poetry, nor
is the origin of fossil fuels a part of auto mechanics.

The ToE is exactly the same regardless of how life originated.

I cant be expected to "prove" or demonstrate evolution to anyone, by going tappity tap on this tablet.

Or teach you calculus this evening either.

Could you describe the life forms that existed in the Silurian? Devonian? Permian?
If not it might behoove you to search out a library book on something like historical geology.
I kind if doubt you will do that, far less delve into comparative vertebrate anatomy or look into
paleobotany.

But if you did how other than thru evolution would you propose to explain the succession of changes in living things
that is so clearly (despite abe's rather weird statement to the contrary) shown in the fossil record?

My impression is that your interest here is in taking side with abe to challenge me, and by extension the world scientific
community. Present me with a couple of zingers and declare victory.

Now, I may be wrong. If you actually want answers to your questions, I will make considerable effort to help out.
Not that you could not have pursued this long ago on your own. But never mind, better late than never.

What is it you really want here?

Audie I have given you evidence that is true while you just declare life evolves.Now if you choose to believe by faith life evolves then you can but I've already given more evidence for global floods that I believe by faith,the difference is my faith is not blind like your faith in life evolving is.I guess evidence doesn't really matter much to you and this is why you just declare evolution is true,yet reject the true evidence I have given. It seems the indoctrination that evolution is true is strong with you,even when you think science doesn't do truth,to which I actually agree with,but think it is a problem in science and so much money is wasted on things never proven or demonstrated true anymore. I don't like it.

What is it you really want here?

I'd like to start with this. I want you to know our Father and to spend eternity with Him in an existence of fellowship, adventure and love.
More immediately, I'd really like to have a conversation about this subject, because I don't understand how you can take the stance you do. I truly don't. So either, I'm wrong, or you are. If I'm wrong, I want to know because I'm not interested in living a lie. If your wrong, I want to show you, so you stop living a lie.
Fair enough?

there is no known clear distinction between living and non living things.

I don't understand why you would say this. Perhaps I'm not understanding what you are trying to say?
Living things can move, require energy, adapt to their surroundings and respond to stimulus, are capable of growth, reproduction and death.
Non living things do not grow, nor need energy, move, reproduce, adapt to their surroundings, or maintain homeostasis.

ts not problematic for evolution tho. Why even bring it up?

It's very problematic for evolution. If abiogenesis is false you have no reason for multi cellular organisms to exist. How did these multi cellular organisms come around? Evolution... What is your explanation?

The only word you used that has any particular currency in biological science is "adaptation", and biologists would not agree with your usage

..what? Are you messing with me?

What do you mean, "adaptation"? Specifically, the genetics of adaptation.

Adaptation: Change in response to natural selection.
Genetics of adaptation: for example, epigenetics.

What bright line distinction do you see between "micro" and "macro"

Micro: changes due to mutation, genetic drift, migration and natural selection within a species that increase variety in the species.
Macro: Species becoming a different species.

Proof is something for math or distilled spirits.

False. Proof is the revelation of objective truth. I don't need math to know I'm objectively and truly a man. That only takes observation.

Abio. is not a part of ToE.

How do you figure? Without evolution, there is no abiogenesis.

I kind if doubt you will do that, far less delve into comparative vertebrate anatomy or look into paleobotany.

Already have, numerous times, and extensively. This is old news to me.

But if you did how other than thru evolution would you propose to explain the succession of changes in living things
that is so clearly (despite abe's rather weird statement to the contrary) shown in the fossil record?

Microevolutionary steps within species. That's it.


Are you saying you believe in the Cladogram?

There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations -Behe, Michael

(I'm sure you write this guy off if you know of him).

I am too sick for this. So just a couple of things.

How would you be able to tell when one species had become another, what difference would you point to?

Can you show me any source for the assertion that abio is part of ToE.

Can you identify a theory of law that has been proved to be true?