Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:Evolution only addresses changes OBSERVED in nature ( in the case of past events it is based on interpretation of the historical data).
It does NOT address anything other than that.
People that say they don't see any evidence for evolution typically don't either understand the evidence AND how it relates to evolution or they expect those changes to be a certain ( like always leading to an improvement that is visible or noteworthy).

See, the example of the Finches is a good one because it shows two birds that basically look the same and are Finches BUT because they can't interbreed succesfully, are two different species.
Not that either species is "more evolved" than the other ( in the case of some superiority).

For some, it seems, that evolution should make it so that the evolved species is SO VERY different from the original that there is no way to see them but as VERY DIFFERENT things.

That is not the case.

Often I see those who dont know much on the subject talk about the how evolution should be able to but cant produce ENTIRELY different species.

Sheesh, a salamander is not entirely different from a gibbon.

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Evolution only addresses changes OBSERVED in nature ( in the case of past events it is based on interpretation of the historical data).
It does NOT address anything other than that.
People that say they don't see any evidence for evolution typically don't either understand the evidence AND how it relates to evolution or they expect those changes to be a certain ( like always leading to an improvement that is visible or noteworthy).

See, the example of the Finches is a good one because it shows two birds that basically look the same and are Finches BUT because they can't interbreed succesfully, are two different species.
Not that either species is "more evolved" than the other ( in the case of some superiority).

For some, it seems, that evolution should make it so that the evolved species is SO VERY different from the original that there is no way to see them but as VERY DIFFERENT things.

That is not the case.

Often I see those who dont know much on the subject talk about the how evolution should be able to but cant produce ENTIRELY different species.

Sheesh, a salamander is not entirely different from a gibbon.

That is why it is important to clear up when a species becomes another one, biologically speaking, and I have found that the easiest way is ( in lay man terms) to view in the reproductive way:
When one group or member(s) of a group has changed enough so as to not be able to breed successfully with its' original group ( but can obviously breed withing its own group) we have a different species REGARDLESS of appearance.

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:The effort to make ToE something that does have to do with the existence God seem to be entirely or nearly so, from your "side".

This topic doesn't interest me in the least but I thought I'd comment on your post above Audie. That is simply not true. One of the most famous quotes from Richard Dawkins, the champion of militant atheism, is that after Darwin's theory of natural selection and common descent it is now possible for an atheist to be intellectually fulfilled (me, paraphrasing). Clearly he thinks the ToE did away with the notion of God. Deny it all you want, that is precisely (albeit perhaps covertly) what most atheists think.

You dont take "Dawkins" word for anything else, why do you take it for that?

Since he is considered by many to be the champion of the cause I take his statement as symptomatic.

Audie wrote:YOU do not, btw, know what "most" atheists think. Or why. Suggesting as you did, however covertly, that most atheists are dimwits is kinda uncool.

You don't like it at all when someone attributes to you or assumes things you did not say so please refrain from doing that yourself. Nowhere did I say or even imply that most atheists are dimwits.

Audie wrote:Most Chinese..subjective impression.. wouldnt waste a minute on such silliness as this proof / disproof of god thro science stuff. Physics disproves god! Biology and geology disproves god! Nah, Total nonsense, non topic.

No argument there. Again, where did I even imply such?

Audie wrote:As to whether or not someone feels "fulfilled", what ever-the-h. that means, it still has zero to do with ToE has anything to do with the existence of God. Nor does how you feel about it.

Clearly that's not what Dawkins and his brand of atheism think. If you disagree with him your issue is with him.

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:The effort to make ToE something that does have to do with the existence God seem to be entirely or nearly so, from your "side".

This topic doesn't interest me in the least but I thought I'd comment on your post above Audie. That is simply not true. One of the most famous quotes from Richard Dawkins, the champion of militant atheism, is that after Darwin's theory of natural selection and common descent it is now possible for an atheist to be intellectually fulfilled (me, paraphrasing). Clearly he thinks the ToE did away with the notion of God. Deny it all you want, that is precisely (albeit perhaps covertly) what most atheists think.[/quote]

You dont take "Dawkins" word for anything else, why do you take it for that?

Since he is considered by many to be the champion of the cause I take his statement as symptomatic.

Audie wrote:YOU do not, btw, know what "most" atheists think. Or why. Suggesting as you did, however covertly, that most atheists are dimwits is kinda uncool.

You don't like it at all when someone attributes to you or assumes things you did not say so please refrain from doing that yourself. Nowhere did I say or even imply that most atheists are dimwits.

Audie wrote:Most Chinese..subjective impression.. wouldnt waste a minute on such silliness as this proof / disproof of god thro science stuff. Physics disproves god! Biology and geology disproves god! Nah, Total nonsense, non topic.

No argument there. Again, where did I even imply such?

Audie wrote:As to whether or not someone feels "fulfilled", what ever-the-h. that means, it still has zero to do with ToE has anything to do with the existence of God. Nor does how you feel about it.

Clearly that's not what Dawkins and his brand of atheism think. If you disagree with him your issue is with him.

Dawkins does not speak for me. He represents antitheists, if he represents anyone other than himself. You do NOT know what "most" atheists think. You cant go from what he says to a conclusion about what most atheists or even a substantial percent think.


If you can run that narrow thread from D to what "most" think, I can sure run the wide highway from what you about what atheists believe to implying they are dimwits.

The line in bold, here repeated.. Clearly he thinks the ToE did away with the notion of God. Deny it all you want, that is precisely (albeit perhaps covertly) what most atheists think.

Lets try an either / or. You either think its a valid conclusion, that ToE does do away with god, or you think it does not.

Now, if it does not, do you think its a valid conclusion anyway or a dimwit one?

If its a dimwit conclusion, what have you just said, however covertly, about most atheists?

Audie wrote:Dawkins does not speak for me. He represents antitheists, if he represents anyone other than himself. You do NOT know what "most" atheists think. You cant go from what he says to a conclusion about what most atheists or even a substantial percent think.


If you can run that narrow thread from D to what "most" think, I can sure run the wide highway from what you about what atheists believe to implying they are dimwits.

The line in bold, here repeated.. Clearly he thinks the ToE did away with the notion of God. Deny it all you want, that is precisely (albeit perhaps covertly) what most atheists think.

Lets try an either / or. You either think its a valid conclusion, that ToE does do away with god, or you think it does not.

Now, if it does not, do you think its a valid conclusion anyway or a dimwit one?

If its a dimwit conclusion, what have you just said, however covertly, about most atheists?

I'm not going to play this game with you. I am simply asking you to be consistent and apply what you preach. Other than that my point is made.

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:Dawkins does not speak for me. He represents antitheists, if he represents anyone other than himself. You do NOT know what "most" atheists think. You cant go from what he says to a conclusion about what most atheists or even a substantial percent think.


If you can run that narrow thread from D to what "most" think, I can sure run the wide highway from what you about what atheists believe to implying they are dimwits.

The line in bold, here repeated.. Clearly he thinks the ToE did away with the notion of God. Deny it all you want, that is precisely (albeit perhaps covertly) what most atheists think.

Lets try an either / or. You either think its a valid conclusion, that ToE does do away with god, or you think it does not.

Now, if it does not, do you think its a valid conclusion anyway or a dimwit one?

If its a dimwit conclusion, what have you just said, however covertly, about most atheists?

I'm not going to play this game with you. I am simply asking you to be consistent and apply what you preach. Other than that my point is made.

No inconsistency on my part. And its no game.

You said that most atheists accept such facile nonsense as that ToE does away with god. That was of course something you made up, you have no such information.

Now you dont like it coming back on you, to stand for what you believe? Where is the consistency in that?

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Atheists that I've dealt with are intellectually dishonest and believe things there is no evidence for,just so they can deny a creator,then deny they have faith in things there is no real evidence to back up.It is all about semantics instead of substance.It does take more blind faith to believe what they believe than to believe anything in the bible,any story.They believe life evolves with no real evidence and naturalism too with no real evidence.I could never be one of them where evidence does not matter,it is about what you believe is true and the science will back it up oneday.

That's funny! Because when I've dealt with you, you make outrageous claims; I ask you to back them up and you disappear without a response. I am still waiting for you to back up claims you've made days ago. If you were intellectually honest, you would either admit you have no evidence or admit you were just bluffing. Intellectual honesty goes both ways my friend!

Ken

I feel like I already gave you evidence for global floods and yet you just dismissed it,meanwhile you brought up evidence for evolution and I explained why it does not demonstrate life evolves.So I say lets do it this way you provide scientific evidence that demonstrates life evolves,not just change,but evolve.You provide evidence that life evolves and then I'll respond to it if it does or not and why.Then I will provide scientific evidence for a global flood and explain why we do not need to add water to the earth for a global flood to have happened,which is a major argument against Noah's flood and is what you brought up about it.

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Evolution only addresses changes OBSERVED in nature ( in the case of past events it is based on interpretation of the historical data).
It does NOT address anything other than that.
People that say they don't see any evidence for evolution typically don't either understand the evidence AND how it relates to evolution or they expect those changes to be a certain ( like always leading to an improvement that is visible or noteworthy).

See, the example of the Finches is a good one because it shows two birds that basically look the same and are Finches BUT because they can't interbreed succesfully, are two different species.
Not that either species is "more evolved" than the other ( in the case of some superiority).

For some, it seems, that evolution should make it so that the evolved species is SO VERY different from the original that there is no way to see them but as VERY DIFFERENT things.

That is not the case.

Often I see those who dont know much on the subject talk about the how evolution should be able to but cant produce ENTIRELY different species.

Sheesh, a salamander is not entirely different from a gibbon.

Did dinosaurs evolve into birds?

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Evolution only addresses changes OBSERVED in nature ( in the case of past events it is based on interpretation of the historical data).
It does NOT address anything other than that.
People that say they don't see any evidence for evolution typically don't either understand the evidence AND how it relates to evolution or they expect those changes to be a certain ( like always leading to an improvement that is visible or noteworthy).

See, the example of the Finches is a good one because it shows two birds that basically look the same and are Finches BUT because they can't interbreed succesfully, are two different species.
Not that either species is "more evolved" than the other ( in the case of some superiority).

For some, it seems, that evolution should make it so that the evolved species is SO VERY different from the original that there is no way to see them but as VERY DIFFERENT things.

That is not the case.

Often I see those who dont know much on the subject talk about the how evolution should be able to but cant produce ENTIRELY different species.

Sheesh, a salamander is not entirely different from a gibbon.

That is why it is important to clear up when a species becomes another one, biologically speaking, and I have found that the easiest way is ( in lay man terms) to view in the reproductive way:
When one group or member(s) of a group has changed enough so as to not be able to breed successfully with its' original group ( but can obviously breed withing its own group) we have a different species REGARDLESS of appearance.

Here go all the way down the page to notes and read #2.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

The problem here is that Macroevolution isn't a change of species . It's much higher then that .

Futuyma’s Evolutionary Biology, in the edition used by a senior member at UD for an upper division College course, states, “In Chapters 23 through 25, we will analyze the principles of MACROEVOLUTION, that is, the origin and diversification of higher taxa.” (pg. 447, emphasis in original). [Futuyma contrasts “microevolution” -- “slight, short-term evolutionary changes within species.”]

http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/#macmictrms

My point is and always has been that showing a virus or bacteria adapting and telling us it evolved is a lie.Or showing finches,frogs,salamanders,rats,etc which only shows variations in reproduction that you don't have to know is true by going in a science lab,but this is peer reviewed scientific evidence life evolves when none of them evolved.They are seeing things that are not happening and seeing life evolve when it is'nt evolving.Nobody sees or observes life evolving and this is what science needs to focus on,not using variations in reproduction or life adapting as evidence that nobody denies that lives in reality,it actually proves kinds produce after their kind like it says in Genesis.Scientists are using things that was known long before evolution came on the scene as evidence life evolves.

Bacteria that grows and thrives near radiation adapted to live in that kind of environment but it did not evolve,it will always be bacteria but it is supposed to evolve.

bippy123 wrote:The problem here is that Macroevolution isn't a change of species . It's much higher then that .

Futuyma’s Evolutionary Biology, in the edition used by a senior member at UD for an upper division College course, states, “In Chapters 23 through 25, we will analyze the principles of MACROEVOLUTION, that is, the origin and diversification of higher taxa.” (pg. 447, emphasis in original). [Futuyma contrasts “microevolution” -- “slight, short-term evolutionary changes within species.”]

http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/#macmictrms

How is that a "problem"?

abelcainsbrother wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Evolution only addresses changes OBSERVED in nature ( in the case of past events it is based on interpretation of the historical data).
It does NOT address anything other than that.
People that say they don't see any evidence for evolution typically don't either understand the evidence AND how it relates to evolution or they expect those changes to be a certain ( like always leading to an improvement that is visible or noteworthy).

See, the example of the Finches is a good one because it shows two birds that basically look the same and are Finches BUT because they can't interbreed succesfully, are two different species.
Not that either species is "more evolved" than the other ( in the case of some superiority).

For some, it seems, that evolution should make it so that the evolved species is SO VERY different from the original that there is no way to see them but as VERY DIFFERENT things.

That is not the case.

Often I see those who dont know much on the subject talk about the how evolution should be able to but cant produce ENTIRELY different species.

Sheesh, a salamander is not entirely different from a gibbon.

That is why it is important to clear up when a species becomes another one, biologically speaking, and I have found that the easiest way is ( in lay man terms) to view in the reproductive way:
When one group or member(s) of a group has changed enough so as to not be able to breed successfully with its' original group ( but can obviously breed withing its own group) we have a different species REGARDLESS of appearance.

Here go all the way down the page to notes and read #2.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

You didn't understand what I wrote.
Talk origins? really?

bippy123 wrote:The problem here is that Macroevolution isn't a change of species . It's much higher then that .

Futuyma’s Evolutionary Biology, in the edition used by a senior member at UD for an upper division College course, states, “In Chapters 23 through 25, we will analyze the principles of MACROEVOLUTION, that is, the origin and diversification of higher taxa.” (pg. 447, emphasis in original). [Futuyma contrasts “microevolution” -- “slight, short-term evolutionary changes within species.”]

http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/#macmictrms

Macroevolution as a term can be used in a wide range of ways, yes, as your link states:

Campbell’s Biology (4th Ed.) states: “macroevolution: Evolutionary change on a grand scale, encompassing the origin of novel designs, evolutionary trends, adaptive radiation, and mass extinction.” [By contrast, this book defines “microevolution as “a change in the gene pool of a population over a succession of generations”]

How is that a problem though?

Marcoevolution can occur from "enough events of microevolution" (evolutionary trends as stated above) OR an event of a grande scale such as the mass extinction noted above.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Evolution only addresses changes OBSERVED in nature ( in the case of past events it is based on interpretation of the historical data).
It does NOT address anything other than that.
People that say they don't see any evidence for evolution typically don't either understand the evidence AND how it relates to evolution or they expect those changes to be a certain ( like always leading to an improvement that is visible or noteworthy).

See, the example of the Finches is a good one because it shows two birds that basically look the same and are Finches BUT because they can't interbreed succesfully, are two different species.
Not that either species is "more evolved" than the other ( in the case of some superiority).

For some, it seems, that evolution should make it so that the evolved species is SO VERY different from the original that there is no way to see them but as VERY DIFFERENT things.

That is not the case.

Often I see those who dont know much on the subject talk about the how evolution should be able to but cant produce ENTIRELY different species.

Sheesh, a salamander is not entirely different from a gibbon.

That is why it is important to clear up when a species becomes another one, biologically speaking, and I have found that the easiest way is ( in lay man terms) to view in the reproductive way:
When one group or member(s) of a group has changed enough so as to not be able to breed successfully with its' original group ( but can obviously breed withing its own group) we have a different species REGARDLESS of appearance.

For lay terms that will probably do.