Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Mon May 16, 2016 10:59 pm**

crochet1949 wrote:I still have a problem with / God can create through evolution. The human ability for Reasoning -- that being compared to rats -- the same rats that human beings design rat traps to catch because they are a horrible nuisance -- the rats get trapped -- shouldn't they be using Their reasoning ability to Avoid the traps?

Faulty reasoning in rats, like faulty reasoning in humans. can lead to disaster. A rat in a trap has misjudged the situation - and so has a man in a carcrash. However the fact that even in the most sophisticated urban environments there is no shortage of rats suggests that as a race they are quite clever enough to manage their lifestyle.

People's reasoning ability allows Us to design and produce homes/ luxury cars / homes / yachts, etc. As Well As being able to survive very nicely in the great outdoors. Animals simply Do Not have that ability -- they Do make their homes and provide for their young out of what they find in nature -- Or by what People choose to provide them with.
Just suggesting........

A bit vague, if I may say so. It is difficult to measure exactly how 'well' a species is adapted to its environment - factors such as continuous sustainable population growth might be considered here - or how 'well' an individual in that species is adapted - factors such as good health and reproductive success might be considered here - but it is not clear that human 'reason' is necessarily a 'better' aid to survival than jelly-fish 'instinct'. They are simply adaptations to their particular environment. Jesus recognised that that some adaptations need to be modified to cope with change, in our case an inequitable distribution of resources, and insisted that people with "luxury cars / homes / yachts" etc. should sell them and give the money to the poor. If the "reasoning ability [that] allows us to design and produce homes/ luxury cars / homes / yachts, etc." is a feature of spontaneous creation, it may have been a bit of a botched job.

Posted: **Tue May 17, 2016 12:43 am**

A trap is one of the tools that people use to try to catch a rodent that no one wants around. Rats or mice are traced through the droppings they leave. They are dirty and spread disease and cause damage.
They are like mosquitoes -- we do our best to destroy them cause they cause only problems.
Rats / mice reproduce / spread very quickly.
What sophisticated urban environments are they found in. Other than the slum areas on the very edges of them.
The only reason we had a problem with them is because a family that had owned two Old houses, had left them to live elsewhere. They had left a bunch of junk in them. Apparently their other surroundings was located out in the country -- they'd come back once in a while with a horse trailer -- apparently- in advertently brought a couple of rats with them and they got into the house. And then they were Gone, for a Long time. And We started finding signs of 'something' that turned out to be rats. We called the health department and they could only do a visual from the street, but they verified what we suspected. Some people bought the property and tore down a shed in back of the property closest to our house. What a horrible, stinky mess got uncovered. And then there was a fire that destroyed most everything. THAT ended the problem with the rats. And then we decided to remodel and found they had started nesting in our attic and garage. But , at least we were able to catch the situation before the rats had a chance to propagate very much.

Obviously we don't agree -- didn't expect to. And you are using a parable and sort of misrepresenting That also. He was not Insisting that people with money and having all that luxury stuff need to sell it and give it to the poor. He Did say that the Love of money is root of all evil. And he Also suggested to the young man who wanted eternal life and was rich needed too adjust his attitude a bit. Some times people with wealth can buy everything they need. They want 'salvation' but they are being told that their money Won't buy their salvation. Some times people need to loose everything in order to appreciate what God Can give them. And there are lots of wealthy people who Do use their money For God / God has blessed them materially and they show their appreciation by giving it back to God in various ways.
God Also gives us the freedom of choice -- what to do With our reasoning ability. Some use it to devise evil and they Will pay for it.
Sometimes we humans Do act like animals and sometimes animals Do act better than some People do. But there Is a difference between the two worlds.
God does Not 'botch' anything.

Posted: **Tue May 17, 2016 12:58 am**

He was not Insisting that people with money and having all that luxury stuff need to sell it and give it to the poor.

Incorrect. That's exactly what he said.

He Did say that the Love of money is root of all evil.

I think that was St Paul, actually.

And he Also suggested to the young man who wanted eternal life and was rich needed too adjust his attitude a bit.

No, he didn't. There was nothing wrong with the young man's attitude. It was simply that he was too rich.

Some times people with wealth can buy everything they need. They want 'salvation' but they are being told that their money Won't buy their salvation. Some times people need to loose everything in order to appreciate what God Can give them. And there are lots of wealthy people who Do use their money For God / God has blessed them materially and they show their appreciation by giving it back to God in various ways.

All very true.

God does Not 'botch' anything.

Quite. That's why evolution is so much better an explanation for his developmental power than spontaneous creation.

Posted: **Tue May 17, 2016 4:34 am**

hughfarey wrote:Time for a reality check?
neo-x wrote:To the original question in the title, God doesn't need to create if he places the laws of nature as they are, the rest will simply follow.
This is a rather bleak view of God, I think, theologically just possible, but missing Kureiou's point about those laws having to be maintained.

First of all, I don't think that God has to maintain laws like we need to breathe to exist. But I think the laws being maintained is a theological construct to answer specific problems which otherwise don't make sense. In that way, to me, it's a technicality which doesn't have to be true in reality but on paper, it does make a lot of sense. And in that regard, I say it's fine. I have nothing against it, nor do I think it changes much. Bleakness has nothing to do with it. Somalian children dying of starvation is also a very bleak picture.

I don't necessarily disagree with K's post, which I read and enjoyed. If this dependency shows that God sustains all, then I really agree with it. I have always maintained that God is needed to start things off. Whether it's guided or not is a matter of opinion. And I don't think we'll ever know for sure.

To me, God could have created everything intimately but I think he didn't. Rather he created or set the laws and what we see now are simply the outcome of those. Did God has us in mind, I'm sure he did.

This rather depends what you mean by 'square' and 'allow'. Old Earth Evolutionists come up with ever more entertaining distortions to make evolution 'square' with a literal reading of Genesis. Theistic Evolutionists think the biblical text is not required to 'allow' for evolution, whatever it says.

T.E's are wrong in that instance because there is really no room to allow for anything except what you read.

What is your take on it?

Posted: **Tue May 17, 2016 4:50 am**

Kurieuo wrote:
hughfarey wrote:Time for a reality check?
neo-x wrote:To the original question in the title, God doesn't need to create if he places the laws of nature as they are, the rest will simply follow.
This is a rather bleak view of God, I think, theologically just possible, but missing Kureiou's point about those laws having to be maintained.
Really, something we agree on? I had to go digging back, but here is what I said neo-x.

From my previous exchanges with neo-x however, he prefers to take the minimum approach possible to the point that not even God is required to "guide" things. This can never be attacked or had the rug pulled from out from underneath it. Similarly, so impersonal and even bleak as you say that a person believes nothing but the bar barest existence of God must be maintained with science rather than the other way around. The bleakness that you see in neo-x's thinking, I think comes from philosophical restraints placed upon us in an era of Materialism (which I see approaching an end).

I think it is an ever so important point to realise that things aren't just "created" but must be upheld such that the realities we experience are perpetually created. It is like, a building that is set upon it's foundation, struts and so on. Remove the building's foundation, make those struts vanish, and it'll all collapse and fall down. Similarly, just because "God created" doesn't mean God can walk away. Given God create, God becomes the foundation that keeps every single particle existing and glue that binds everything together.

On the other hand, we have many who don't like to consider the foundational nature of reality. They don't like asking questions about what lays beneath the physical realities that we experience. Rather, for such, ourselves and the world we experience just exist and we shouldn't be startled or surprised that they do exist and function all by themselves running on absolutely nothing.

This is similar to the "big bang" problem if you will, that is, things just existing as they are and working as they do. The world came into existence from nothing and keeps running do based upon nothing, and we shouldn't even entertain the nothing that something keeps everything in existence, stable and running -- for the lens with which we've all been taught to view the world through won't let us do that! As Tolkien stated, to entertain there is more behind the walls would be an act of treason.

K, thank you for linking back to your post. I don't disagree with you, but I think this point is one of aesthetics, rather than something foundational. A more fitting analogy to me, is a driver, putting down his foot on the pedal to move the car. How much involvement is needed from the driver to make the engine, he designed, run? only his foot pushing down, the engine, and all its internal processes are working without the direct tinkering of the driver. To that end I agree with you that there is something sustainable - the foot on the pedal - that keeps things going. Once it's designed it runs with minimum effort on the part of the driver.

However to your broader point, I absolutely agree with you. God is reality and existence itself and anything that happens must happen by extension via his existence. No God, nothing.

And does that mean, God is actively guiding things? I don't know, maybe he is. Although as I said before, to me it looks like an aesthetics question, like "he must be". I just don't think it's necessary.

BTW, I don't take this position because "This can never be attacked or had the rug pulled from out from underneath it." Why do you think so, all anyone needs to do is to show that there is no bleakness, so to say, in God creating things, that he is doing things intimately. But may be that can never be shown? I don't know.

Your thoughts are much appreciated.

Posted: **Tue May 17, 2016 6:40 am**

neo-x wrote:BTW, I don't take this position because "This can never be attacked or had the rug pulled from out from underneath it." Why do you think so, all anyone needs to do is to show that there is no bleakness, so to say, in God creating things, that he is doing things intimately. But may be that can never be shown? I don't know.

I'd have to dig up a past thread, but it might have been more what I felt during a previous exchange between us regarding God's guidance, I think when discussing some argument by Plantinga. Basically, that feeling being if God's direct guidance is removed from the equation too, then science can touch such a belief and God is safe.

Whether such is still bleak, I guess is subjective, such kind of removes God's personal interaction with the world, as is revealed in Christ Himself. I'd have to re-read that exchange again though, I might have jumped the gun, or perhaps worded that particular sentence poorly.

Posted: **Tue May 17, 2016 7:57 am**

Yes, the specified complex info within DNA Is another area. Codes don't just Happen.
And , I agree, macroevolution has Not been proven ..... fossils Don't especially bear it out.
And That is what much of evolution is based On. The world Of mutations. The DNA built-in repair mechanisms.

My thinking, in part, is that 'we' are to believe what all the researchers, scientist tell us in their texts, papers. regarding evolution. We are not to question it. Accept everything. We All have reasoning ability -- let's Use it.
But They question, Deny, the reliability even the existence Of Our sources of info.

Posted: **Tue May 17, 2016 9:42 am**

neo-x wrote:T.E's are wrong in that instance because there is really no room to allow for anything except what you read.

I don't think so.

crotchet1949 wrote:'We' are to believe what all the researchers, scientist tell us in their texts, papers. regarding evolution. We are not to question it. Accept everything.

I don't know where you get this from. Abelcainsbrother suffers from the same delusion. Scientists most certainly do not want you to accept things without question. On the contrary, they demand that you question everything, examine the evidence, and decide for yourself. Are you confusing evolutionists with creationists? Because creationists often make hopelessly unsupported statements which they happen to believe, and get quite miffed when anybody attempts to question them. I am not an atheist, but if I were, I doubt if any insistence that I believe literally in the words of a book, without any supporting evidence, would be likely to change my mind.

Posted: **Tue May 17, 2016 9:57 am**

hughfarey wrote:
neo-x wrote:T.E's are wrong in that instance because there is really no room to allow for anything except what you read.
I don't think so.

You are entitled to your opinion. mine is that there isn't any merit or room for it, from the text.

Posted: **Tue May 17, 2016 10:57 am**

hughfarey wrote:
neo-x wrote:T.E's are wrong in that instance because there is really no room to allow for anything except what you read.
I don't think so.

crotchet1949 wrote:'We' are to believe what all the researchers, scientist tell us in their texts, papers. regarding evolution. We are not to question it. Accept everything.
I don't know where you get this from. Abelcainsbrother suffers from the same delusion. Scientists most certainly do not want you to accept things without question. On the contrary, they demand that you question everything, examine the evidence, and decide for yourself. Are you confusing evolutionists with creationists? Because creationists often make hopelessly unsupported statements which they happen to believe, and get quite miffed when anybody attempts to question them. I am not an atheist, but if I were, I doubt if any insistence that I believe literally in the words of a book, without any supporting evidence, would be likely to change my mind.

Delusion? I have given reasons why I reject evolution,regardless of what scientists say.I actually took it easy on evolutionists in this thread as to why I don't believe God created through evolution.

Posted: **Tue May 17, 2016 11:23 am**

abelcainsbrother wrote:
hughfarey wrote:
neo-x wrote:T.E's are wrong in that instance because there is really no room to allow for anything except what you read.
I don't think so.

crotchet1949 wrote:'We' are to believe what all the researchers, scientist tell us in their texts, papers. regarding evolution. We are not to question it. Accept everything.
I don't know where you get this from. Abelcainsbrother suffers from the same delusion. Scientists most certainly do not want you to accept things without question. On the contrary, they demand that you question everything, examine the evidence, and decide for yourself. Are you confusing evolutionists with creationists? Because creationists often make hopelessly unsupported statements which they happen to believe, and get quite miffed when anybody attempts to question them. I am not an atheist, but if I were, I doubt if any insistence that I believe literally in the words of a book, without any supporting evidence, would be likely to change my mind.
Delusion? I have given reasons why I reject evolution,regardless of what scientists say.I actually took it easy on evolutionists in this thread as to why I don't believe God created through evolution.

A person who knows more than any scientist on earth certainly should take that stand.

On the other hand, one such as yourself who knows next to nothing and that little gleaned from pop science and then regurgitated in a nearly unrecognizable new form... someone like that might wonder if he is being delusional. If he thinks he knows more than any scientist on earth, that is.
To think it is delusional. it would not do to be delusional. Yet there it is;

"regardless of what scientists say". Yep, our abe must the the greatest scientist ever. Or, delusional.

Your endless dodges when asked for one (1) fact contrary to ToE..why is that?
Could it be really that your "reasons" are nothing but ill-informed vaporware?

If not, give us the fact now. Waiting....

Posted: **Tue May 17, 2016 11:32 am**

crochet1949 wrote:
Yes, the specified complex info within DNA Is another area. Codes don't just Happen.
We will skip this, as it is fringe "science" and you cannot explain it anyway.

And , I agree, macroevolution has Not been proven ..... fossils Don't especially bear it out.
Except they do, abundantly clearly. But you dont actually know one way or the other.

And That is what much of evolution is based On. The world Of mutations. The DNA built-in repair mechanisms.
Perhaps if you know what it is built on you'd not be so sure of yourself .

My thinking, in part, is that 'we' are to believe what all the researchers, scientist tell us in their texts, papers. regarding evolution.

Who besides the church tells you what to believe? The info is there. You can study math, physics, astronomy, architecture, automotive mechanics, music, art, English lit. You are not told to learn or believe anything you dont care to.

We are not to question it. Accept everything.
Too bad you managed to get that idea, it is the opposite of what anyone with a knowledge of science would say.

We All have reasoning ability -- let's Use it.
Excellent idea. Start any time. No flood-believer has given it much of a workout. The ability may atrophy if not used. Get crackin'!

But They question, Deny, the reliability even the existence Of Our sources of info
Claiming hypocrisy on the part of unidentified "they' is kinda silly, dont you think?

Any good researcher, whether historian, detective, chemist, forensic pathologist, you name it should and does question everything.

.

Posted: **Tue May 17, 2016 11:48 am**

BTW -- the 'church' does Not tell me what to think. We are encouraged to read and study God's Word ourselves , ask questions, learn from each other.

Mock all you want -- it's not like I haven't heard it all before.

And I've never claimed to know more than any scientist on earth. I AM skeptical.

Posted: **Tue May 17, 2016 12:06 pm**

Audie wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:
hughfarey wrote:
neo-x wrote:T.E's are wrong in that instance because there is really no room to allow for anything except what you read.
I don't think so.

crotchet1949 wrote:'We' are to believe what all the researchers, scientist tell us in their texts, papers. regarding evolution. We are not to question it. Accept everything.
I don't know where you get this from. Abelcainsbrother suffers from the same delusion. Scientists most certainly do not want you to accept things without question. On the contrary, they demand that you question everything, examine the evidence, and decide for yourself. Are you confusing evolutionists with creationists? Because creationists often make hopelessly unsupported statements which they happen to believe, and get quite miffed when anybody attempts to question them. I am not an atheist, but if I were, I doubt if any insistence that I believe literally in the words of a book, without any supporting evidence, would be likely to change my mind.
Delusion? I have given reasons why I reject evolution,regardless of what scientists say.I actually took it easy on evolutionists in this thread as to why I don't believe God created through evolution.
A person who knows more than any scientist on earth certainly should take that stand.

On the other hand, one such as yourself who knows next to nothing and that little gleaned from pop science and then regurgitated in a nearly unrecognizable new form... someone like that might wonder if he is being delusional. If he thinks he knows more than any scientist on earth, that is.
To think it is delusional. it would not do to be delusional. Yet there it is;

"regardless of what scientists say". Yep, our abe must the the greatest scientist ever. Or, delusional.

Your endless dodges when asked for one (1) fact contrary to ToE..why is that?
Could it be really that your "reasons" are nothing but ill-informed vaporware?

If not, give us the fact now. Waiting....

I never claimed I know more than a scientist.I have researched and examined the evidence scientists use for evidence life evolves and it does not demonstrate what they explain and this is why I don't accept evolution.I expect better from science. I do not just believe everything a book,man,etc says is true unless it comes to the bible. If I'm interested in something I try to examine the evidence behind it before I accept it.I could careless less about what the majority thinks about it.Majority is not how we go about determining what is right or not. I have already given many examples and have shown and explained how the evidence in evolution science is weak and does not back up and demonstrate what scientists explin when they explain how life evolves and yet you have ignored it,or rejected it. So why should I keep giving more reasons if its just going to be rejected? I'll wait until a more opportune time to. Why should I cast pearls before swine?

Posted: **Tue May 17, 2016 12:33 pm**

abelcainsbrother wrote:
Audie wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:
hughfarey wrote:
neo-x wrote:T.E's are wrong in that instance because there is really no room to allow for anything except what you read.
I don't think so.

crotchet1949 wrote:'We' are to believe what all the researchers, scientist tell us in their texts, papers. regarding evolution. We are not to question it. Accept everything.
I don't know where you get this from. Abelcainsbrother suffers from the same delusion. Scientists most certainly do not want you to accept things without question. On the contrary, they demand that you question everything, examine the evidence, and decide for yourself. Are you confusing evolutionists with creationists? Because creationists often make hopelessly unsupported statements which they happen to believe, and get quite miffed when anybody attempts to question them. I am not an atheist, but if I were, I doubt if any insistence that I believe literally in the words of a book, without any supporting evidence, would be likely to change my mind.
Delusion? I have given reasons why I reject evolution,regardless of what scientists say.I actually took it easy on evolutionists in this thread as to why I don't believe God created through evolution.
A person who knows more than any scientist on earth certainly should take that stand.

On the other hand, one such as yourself who knows next to nothing and that little gleaned from pop science and then regurgitated in a nearly unrecognizable new form... someone like that might wonder if he is being delusional. If he thinks he knows more than any scientist on earth, that is.
To think it is delusional. it would not do to be delusional. Yet there it is;

"regardless of what scientists say". Yep, our abe must the the greatest scientist ever. Or, delusional.

Your endless dodges when asked for one (1) fact contrary to ToE..why is that?
Could it be really that your "reasons" are nothing but ill-informed vaporware?

If not, give us the fact now. Waiting....

I never claimed I know more than a scientist.I have researched and examined the evidence scientists use for evidence life evolves and it does not demonstrate what they explain and this is why I don't accept evolution.I expect better from science
That is precisely where you claim to know more and better than any scientist on earth.
Anyone else here can see you doing that. It is delusional. Both to say it and to deny saying it.

. I do not just believe everything a book,man,etc says is true unless it comes to the bible
.

You only believe your chosen interpretation of the bible, which is just as arrogant as the claim of knowing more than any scientist.

If I'm interested in something I try to examine the evidence behind it before I accept it.I could careless less about what the majority thinks about it

It is good not to go with majority just because it is majority. But you do not know enough to have anything remotely resembling a valid opinion. Your position is like a janitor saying he does not accept the majority opinion interpreting a CAT scan before neurosurgery.

.Majority is not how we go about determining what is right or not. I have already given many examples and have shown and explained how the evidence in evolution science is weak
Your grasp is what is weak. Notice how you cannot provide one contrary example to ToE?

and does not back up and demonstrate what scientists explin when they explain how life evolves and yet you have ignored it,or rejected it.
But it does, and you dont even know enough to realize that.

So why should I keep giving more reasons if its just going to be rejected?
You have given exactly one reason: Abe doesnt understand.

With reading comprehension on the level that you came up with the statement that "evolution teaches that dinosaurs learned to fly to escape predators"
it is no wonder you are confused by what you read, and of course, see what you set out to see: nothing but nonsense.

I'll wait until a more opportune time to. Why should I cast pearls before swine?
As for referring to me as swine, that is pretty uncool. You of course, have no pearls.

Just the same thing over and over, your weak comprehension.

And BTW we notice you still cant produce one fact contrary to ToE.

What would it take for you to notice that fact, and wonder what it means?

Evidence for God from Science

How God can create through evolution:

Re: How God can create through evolution:

Re: How God can create through evolution:

Re: How God can create through evolution:

Re: How God can create through evolution:

Re: How God can create through evolution:

Re: How God can create through evolution:

Re: How God can create through evolution:

Re: How God can create through evolution:

Re: How God can create through evolution:

Re: How God can create through evolution:

Re: How God can create through evolution:

Re: How God can create through evolution:

Re: How God can create through evolution:

Re: How God can create through evolution:

Re: How God can create through evolution: