Evidence for God from Science

Ultimately, why does it really matter if evolution occurred???!!! - as for 1) whether God exists or 2) whether or not He used evolution as the mechanics of His hands? Answer: NOT ONE BIT!!! Endless arguments about secondary/dependent processes that would have occurred over 10 billion years after what the argument should be about - how it all began without their being an unfathomable Intelligence of untold power. So, for our purposes here, why, pray tell, does anyone really think the evolutionary argument matters? Let's REWIND the argument, back in time, where what really needs explaining can be discussed. And it that discussion, we can discuss probabilities of what is known happening without guidance and intelligence behind it. Of how a host of previously non-existing things IMMEDIATELY burst into existence with design, marvelous function, and precise consistency in how things operate.

Continuing to argue about secondary, DEPENDENT processes like evolution is absolutely a HUGE waste of time. It's become a redundant, almost laughable bore to even read it. Why further it? IF it occurred, 1) it does not disprove God; 2) If it didn't occur it doesn't PROVE the Bible is wrong.

In a critique of Denton's book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, it is explained that,

"His main argument was against natural evolutionary theories . . . he wrote that evolution cannot explain the biodiversity of life by chance and instead he wrote that evolution would have to be directed by intelligence from the start of life."

I find this an interesting departure from the standard ID rhetoric. Is this a change in direction for the ID movement, and in particular for the Discovery Institute?

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Abel, your problem is that you have decided that evolution is something that it simply is not and then you go about disproving it, not evolution mind you, but YOUR understanding of what you think it is.

I suggest you do a thorough reading over at Biologos.

That is what I have always encountered with people who wish to argue against ToE,
they do not understand the topic, and make arguments based on some misunderstanding.

As a rule, its not too hard to savage a strawman.

I am unaware of any legitimate argument to be made against ToE. I would be most interested to hear of it if there is.

Yeah but I'm using arguments against evolution that happens to be a biologist that is an atheist. Basically evolution science is just stating the obvious and if you go back over my arguments you'll see examples where evidence in evolution science is just stating the obvious.

You are not able to give one (1) bit of data contrary to ToE. But dont feel bad, nobody else can either.

Anything other than hard data is just blather. How about if you do not post again until you have found some actual verifiable data contrary to ToE.

You would'nt believe anything I say anyway this is why I encourage people to look into it themselves.It is you that cannot give any evidence to refute what I've said,instead you will just disagree while defending evolution.I get the feeling that you don't really want to get into a serious debate about it,so you just defend evolution and leave it at that.

I see some words, but I do not see one fact contrary to ToE.

Philip wrote:Ultimately, why does it really matter if evolution occurred???!!!

Not quite following everything you've said in your post, but it matters to a lot of Christians because, as they see it, it gives lie to the idea that god created all life as is from the very beginning, ergo, the Bible must be wrong. And the fact that people (scientists) seem to have evidence to this effect scares them.

Welcome Audacity now I might actually get into a serious debate about why evolution is a myth whether you believe in God or not.

Philip wrote:Ultimately, why does it really matter if evolution occurred???!!! - as for 1) whether God exists or 2) whether or not He used evolution as the mechanics of His hands? Answer: NOT ONE BIT!!! Endless arguments about secondary/dependent processes that would have occurred over 10 billion years after what the argument should be about - how it all began without their being an unfathomable Intelligence of untold power. So, for our purposes here, why, pray tell, does anyone really think the evolutionary argument matters? Let's REWIND the argument, back in time, where what really needs explaining can be discussed. And it that discussion, we can discuss probabilities of what is known happening without guidance and intelligence behind it. Of how a host of previously non-existing things IMMEDIATELY burst into existence with design, marvelous function, and precise consistency in how things operate.

Continuing to argue about secondary, DEPENDENT processes like evolution is absolutely a HUGE waste of time. It's become a redundant, almost laughable bore to even read it. Why further it? IF it occurred, 1) it does not disprove God; 2) If it didn't occur it doesn't PROVE the Bible is wrong.

I like these kinds of discussions though.I learn things from it many people have been inflenced by the ToE both believers and non-believers so I think it matters whether or not it is real or not. There are plenty of people wo believe evolution proves God or the bible wrong and they use it trying to prove the bible is wrong,the fact is it does not prove the bible wrong or hurt Christianity unless they throw Kenneth Miller who has been great defender of evolution under the bus. as long as we can remain respwctful and can agree to disagree,I see no problem with these kinds of discussions. Sure for some it angers them if you disagree and people don't like to be proven or shown to be wrong because of pride. But I still think its possible to debate and discuss while being respectful.

abelcainsbrother wrote:I'll give you another example of life that has adapted to liv in a hostile environment. Bacteria that grows and thrives in Chernobyl,it actually feeds on the radiation in Chernobyl,it is some resiliant stuff God created but its still bacteria,so much for natural selection causing it to evolve,.

Just because it hasn't evolved to the extent of "species change" doesn't mean evolution hasn't taken place.

Ken

Audacity: Not quite following everything you've said in your post, but it matters to a lot to many Christians because, as they see it, it gives lie to the idea that god created all life as is from the very beginning, ergo, the Bible must be wrong. And the fact that people (scientists) seem to have evidence to this effect scares them.

No, no, NO!!! Evolution would be an entirely DEPENDENT series of processes, ONLY possible per what came into to existence IMMEDIATELY at the Big Bang, which moments before, nothing presently physically existing, existed. Then, as there were over 10 BILLION years before there were even conditions conducive to life - much less how one attempts to explain how this could happen uncaused - but make no mistake, ALL of the conditions and things that evolution would be dependent upon all INSTANTLY came into physical existence at the moment of the Big Bang. Explain THOSE things, with their incredible design and highly specific functions and interactive poetry. There is absolutely NOTHING random about what appeared moments after the Big Bang began. Explain that, and THEN we can argue about secondary, entirely dependent processes that supposed occurred over 10 billion years later.

What INSTANTLY emerged, at the moment of the Big Bang, where nothing physically existing had yet appeared, shows great intelligence in design and function - marvels that we still scarcely can discern or understand. Those things were 1) the exact opposite of RANDOM and 2) they reveal a source of great power and intelligence. These are undeniable. And those whom suggest these things could burst into existence with such incredible complexity and function are essentially entertaining nothing but metaphysics - as no science can explain in such things happening without a cause. It is entirely illogical to think this. Science can only measure existing or dependent things, and certainly cannot discern the CAUSE of anything with no known cause. WHATEVER one thinks pre-existed the Big Bang, they must realize it was eternal (could not create itself) and it contained immense power and staggering intelligence.

Evolution is about how life changes over time. Not about how life began.

The TOE, whether true or not, doesn't even deal with beginnings.

Rick: Evolution is about how life changes over time. Not about how life began.

The TOE, whether true or not, doesn't even deal with beginnings.

Yes, quit arguing for some great understanding about a movie, when you have only glimpses of scenes near its end - as opposed to also having seen the complexity of the explanatory opening scenes, plot development sequences, character development, plots and subplots - all those things that make seeing the ending scenes make sense. Same with evolution arguments - silly conjectures about viewing a few scenes only near the movie's end.

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I'll give you another example of life that has adapted to liv in a hostile environment. Bacteria that grows and thrives in Chernobyl,it actually feeds on the radiation in Chernobyl,it is some resiliant stuff God created but its still bacteria,so much for natural selection causing it to evolve,.

Just because it hasn't evolved to the extent of "species change" doesn't mean evolution hasn't taken place.

Ken

Then Charles Darwin was totally wrong and the ToE should have been dropped from science along time ago.Before Charles Darwin wrote "the Origin of Species" evolution was just an idea,it became a scientific theory because of Charles Darwin's book and influence and yet Darwin has never been shown scientifically correct,not even close. Scientists have had to change what evolution is and have had to weaken what it means to evolve because of a lack of evidence,yet still pushing the evolution myth up the hill.

Evolutionists cannot throw Charles Darwin under the bus and make up their own evolution because they never came close to showing Darwin was right,and yet that's exactly what they did.To where now normal variation in reproduction that was known about thousands of years before Charles Darwin ,hence dogs and roses and was the very thing that caused Darwin to assume life evolves which is why he wrote his book,is now used for evidence life evolves along with demonstrating life can adapt and claiming it means it evolved.

This is a weakened water down version of evolution from when Darwin got it all started and its because of a lack of evidence but yet still pushing this evolution myth. Sorry for the long rant,but its true.

Not one datum point in that. Zero.

It should be noted that adaptation comes FROM genetic change, not the other way around.
In short, and using the cold as an example:
Genetic changes happens that allows the tolerances of colder climates.
Due to that change the organism adapts to colder climates.

Now, environmental factor CAN and DO cause genetic changes BUT TYPICALLY when that happens it is things like pollution, radiation or things like that causing genetic mutations.

I do not know of any case ( and I may be wrong) of the environment causing a SPECIFIC genetic change that allows for adaptation to said environment.

Audacity wrote:In a critique of Denton's book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, it is explained that,

"His main argument was against natural evolutionary theories . . . he wrote that evolution cannot explain the biodiversity of life by chance and instead he wrote that evolution would have to be directed by intelligence from the start of life."

I find this an interesting departure from the standard ID rhetoric. Is this a change in direction for the ID movement, and in particular for the Discovery Institute?

Hard to say since Denton is not an Atypical representation of the ID movement.

Audie wrote:Not one datum point in that. Zero.

Googling "datum".

I'm trying to follow along here. Stop using big words.