Evidence for God from Science

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Guy come on, the burden of proof that ACB requires is too high, you would never be able to convince him of anything, you're best just to leave him alone to his own thoughts.

Ignore me because you can't handle the truth? I do not ignore people I disagree with I come with evidence which I have given.Evidence outshines words but I cannot make anybody change their mind,but evidence changes mine.

Proinsias wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:You both are changing the subject to avoid the evidence that demonstrates life evolves.There is no reason for you to imply I don't know about evidence for evolution.This is a tactic evolutionists use when asked for evidence that demonstrates life evolves.You cannot hide behind your evolution wall because everybody can see the lack of evidence that life evolves which is what this thread is about.Perhaps I'm not worthy to see the evidence to you and you just expect me to believe you but without scientific evidence that demonstrates life evolves I'll stick with the bible

May I ask what you would consider as scientific evidence that life evolved, slowly over billions of years, as is claimed?

I just want scientific evidence that demonstrates life evolves like they claim happens.I think everybody should want to see evidence.And when I have looked for evidence life evolves the evidence they present as evidence does not back up what they say.They tell you a virus evolved when you can see it did not evolve at all.

This is the kind of evidence you must wade through in order to see the lack of evidence,it seems like alot of evidence but you realize they do not even know life evolves themselves,eventhough they believe it does and so there is no reason to look at the evidence in the earth from their perspective like evidence the earth is old and not young,the fossils,evidence of death and extinction,etc all of this evidence was discovered by Christians who started modern science before evolution became so popular after 1859,this evidence once was proving the Gap theory true and it still does today.

What are you afraid of? No evidence to prove God exists? I know critics of the bible say this but you and I should both know salvation by Jesus Christ is ultimate proof and evidence God is real,they just have never been saved by Jesus,they would have all of the evidence they would need if they by faith in Jesus and him rising from the dead,asked him to save them.

Proinsias wrote:

May I ask what you would consider as scientific evidence that life evolved, slowly over billions of years, as is claimed?

ablecainsbrother wrote:
I just want scientific evidence that demonstrates life evolves like they claim happens.I think everybody should want to see evidence.And when I have looked for evidence life evolves the evidence they present as evidence does not back up what they say.They tell you a virus evolved when you can see it did not evolve at all.

This is the kind of evidence you must wade through in order to see the lack of evidence,it seems like alot of evidence but you realize they do not even know life evolves themselves,eventhough they believe it does and so there is no reason to look at the evidence in the earth from their perspective like evidence the earth is old and not young,the fossils,evidence of death and extinction,etc all of this evidence was discovered by Christians who started modern science before evolution became so popular after 1859,this evidence once was proving the Gap theory true and it still does today.

Despite using the word 'evidence' twelve times in your reply I don't feel you have expanded at all on what sort of evidence you would expect if evolution, slowly over billions of years, were in fact the case.

Proinsias wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:[quote="Proinsias"

May I ask what you would consider as scientific evidence that life evolved, slowly over billions of years, as is claimed?

I just want scientific evidence that demonstrates life evolves like they claim happens.I think everybody should want to see evidence.And when I have looked for evidence life evolves the evidence they present as evidence does not back up what they say.They tell you a virus evolved when you can see it did not evolve at all.

This is the kind of evidence you must wade through in order to see the lack of evidence,it seems like alot of evidence but you realize they do not even know life evolves themselves,eventhough they believe it does and so there is no reason to look at the evidence in the earth from their perspective like evidence the earth is old and not young,the fossils,evidence of death and extinction,etc all of this evidence was discovered by Christians who started modern science before evolution became so popular after 1859,this evidence once was proving the Gap theory true and it still does today.

Despite using the word 'evidence' twelve times in your reply I don't feel you have expanded at all on what sort of evidence you would expect if evolution, slowly over billions of years, were in fact the case.[/quote]

Yes I have re-read it evidence that demonstrates life evolves like they claim.Why does it seem you just believe them maybe because the majority of scientists do? Don't you want to know life evolves? Perhaps you and I differ on what happens when life evolves.I think that you must weaken what evolve means in order to go along with the evidence that requires you to assume little changes lead to life evolving,but where is the evidence?Why give them a pass? Because the majority believes it?

abelcainsbrother wrote:What are you afraid of? No evidence to prove God exists? I know critics of the bible say this but you and I should both know salvation by Jesus Christ is ultimate proof and evidence God is real,they just have never been saved by Jesus,they would have all of the evidence they would need if they by faith in Jesus and him rising from the dead,asked him to save them.

I'm not afraid, well maybe a little that my illness consumes me whilst my kids are still young, but I don't feel that evolution, age of the earth, fossils or anything of that nature conflicts with the divine. We all have our own battles to fight. Katabole's recent posting of John Lennox's talk on the conflict of science & God is a good insight into the issue for all interested http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =6&t=40032

Yes I have re-read it evidence that demonstrates life evolves like they claim.Why does it seem you just believe them maybe because the majority of scientists do? Don't you want to know life evolves? Perhaps you and I differ on what happens when life evolves.I think that you must weaken what evolve means in order to go along with the evidence that requires you to assume little changes lead to life evolving,but where is the evidence?Why give them a pass? Because the majority believes it?

I don't feel I am giving anyone a pass. The science makes sense to me, I've studied it and worked with it in the lab. I'm not claiming it's true, just that the current model seems reasonable to me.

Proinsias wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:What are you afraid of? No evidence to prove God exists? I know critics of the bible say this but you and I should both know salvation by Jesus Christ is ultimate proof and evidence God is real,they just have never been saved by Jesus,they would have all of the evidence they would need if they by faith in Jesus and him rising from the dead,asked him to save them.

I'm not afraid, well maybe a little that my illness consumes me whilst my kids are still young, but I don't feel that evolution, age of the earth, fossils or anything of that nature conflicts with the divine. We all have our own battles to fight. Katabole's recent posting of John Lennox's talk on the conflict of science & God is a good insight into the issue for all interested http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =6&t=40032

Yes I have re-read it evidence that demonstrates life evolves like they claim.Why does it seem you just believe them maybe because the majority of scientists do? Don't you want to know life evolves? Perhaps you and I differ on what happens when life evolves.I think that you must weaken what evolve means in order to go along with the evidence that requires you to assume little changes lead to life evolving,but where is the evidence?Why give them a pass? Because the majority believes it?

I don't feel I am giving anyone a pass. The science makes sense to me, I've studied it and worked with it in the lab. I'm not claiming it's true, just that the current model seems reasonable to me.

I like John Lennox so I'll definately check that out. And I agree we all have our battles but I feel like I would be giving them a pass when I've looked at the evidence they use.I have not been in a lab but their evidence is what I focus on in order to accept or reject and I know about theistic evolution and would change my mind if the evidence backed up what they say but it does'nt and so I can't say it is reasonable,but it is possible.

Fair enough, I feel pretty much the same regarding your POV, it's a little beyond what I would call reasonable but possible.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Guy come on, the burden of proof that ACB requires is too high, you would never be able to convince him of anything, you're best just to leave him alone to his own thoughts.

Ignore me because you can't handle the truth? I do not ignore people I disagree with I come with evidence which I have given.Evidence outshines words but I cannot make anybody change their mind,but evidence changes mine.

I am pretty sure those words did not come out of my hands, I said the burden of proof you require is too high, it is fruitless to continue.

Proinsias wrote:Fair enough, I feel pretty much the same regarding your POV, it's a little beyond what I would call reasonable but possible.

Yeah but the good thing is I use much of the same evidence that I see evolutionists use but it proves there was a former world full of life on this earth that perished,then there was a gap of time,then God created this world with the kinds of life we have in this world.

I believe the best approach to creation views within Christianity is the same approach that should be used with eschatological views within Christianity. There are differing views on how and/or why God created the universe and there are differing views on how and/or why God brings about end times eschatology. Remember, that Jesus did not tell Christians to go out into the world and preach creation views or eschatological views. He told us:

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. That Gospel is that Christ died according to the Scriptures, that he was buried and that he rose again according to the Scriptures. (1 Cor 15).

If someone is looking for spiritual truth regarding how and/or why God created things or explanations into why the Universe began or why anything exists in the first place, then I believe a good Christian response would be to claim that there are varying creation views and to take each view and fully explain it (even if one does not personally agree with specific creation models), explain each Creation models strong points and weak points; where it succeeds and where it fails and then let the person asking the question decide for themselves as to what they believe is the best model. As you know these views include scientific based Creation approaches, exegetically based Creation approaches and Creation approaches that use both science and exegesis :

Day Age Creationism
Theistic Evolution Creationism
Progressive Creationism
Scientific Creationism
Ruin/Reconstruction/Gap Creationism
Cosmic Temple or Framework Creationism
Young Earth Creationism
Historical Creationism
Apparent Age Creationism
Punctuated 24-hour Creationism

And probably a few other lesser-known creation models I can't think of at the present moment.

I beleive taking this approach would reduce a lot of argument within Christendom about beginning and end time views that are not salvation or fellowship issues whatsoever and yet still keep active a healthy debate between new Christians, long time believers and non believers IMHO.

Finally a voice of reason, hear hear Katabole.

Katabole wrote:I believe the best approach to creation views within Christianity is the same approach that should be used with eschatological views within Christianity. There are differing views on how and/or why God created the universe and there are differing views on how and/or why God brings about end times eschatology. Remember, that Jesus did not tell Christians to go out into the world and preach creation views or eschatological views. He told us:

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. That Gospel is that Christ died according to the Scriptures, that he was buried and that he rose again according to the Scriptures. (1 Cor 15).

If someone is looking for spiritual truth regarding how and/or why God created things or explanations into why the Universe began or why anything exists in the first place, then I believe a good Christian response would be to claim that there are varying creation views and to take each view and fully explain it (even if one does not personally agree with specific creation models), explain each Creation models strong points and weak points; where it succeeds and where it fails and then let the person asking the question decide for themselves as to what they believe is the best model. As you know these views include scientific based Creation approaches, exegetically based Creation approaches and Creation approaches that use both science and exegesis :

Day Age Creationism
Theistic Evolution Creationism
Progressive Creationism
Scientific Creationism
Ruin/Reconstruction/Gap Creationism
Cosmic Temple or Framework Creationism
Young Earth Creationism
Historical Creationism
Apparent Age Creationism
Punctuated 24-hour Creationism

And probably a few other lesser-known creation models I can't think of at the present moment.

I beleive taking this approach would reduce a lot of argument within Christendom about beginning and end time views that are not salvation or fellowship issues whatsoever and yet still keep active a healthy debate between new Christians, long time believers and non believers IMHO.

I agree with you and I don't like all of the bickering and division in the church and I believe in preaching the gospel to the lost and so now use salvation in Jesus as evidence God is real but there are alot of people who are scientific minded,it has pretty much became a belief system and with their minds filled with science it is very hard to reach them with the gospel.It is these people that need to be reached and we've already seen what many creation theories have done against evolution and the impact they've had against it and it has not been successful in doing any real damage to evolution.

Evolution is thriving well and this is because these creation theories avoid really damaging evolution,I mean young earthers try but are so flawed scientifically that it delutes its effectiveness.I've realized that if we know the flaws and lack of evidence problems in evolution we simply cannot just point out the flaws because this has already been tried and has not worked,no, we need to not only point out the flaws of evolution but offer a more viable theory too,which has not been done and this is where the Gap theory does this,using the same evidence evolutionists use,you can have your bible and the science hand in hand and you can tell people come back to the bible all of you caught up in evolution science.

abelcainsbrother wrote:You cannot demonstrate life evolves without evidence for macro because all micro really is is variations in reproduction despite it being called micro evolution.I don't think evolution can be defeated that way they refuse to give up and admit life does not evolve,hence the Mito Eve theory.

I do not know enough about Macro Evolution to defend it properly, but I think it would be just as foolish to claim micro evolution must be observed/demonstrated in a lab in order for scientists to say what happened, as it would be to claim a crime scene investigator must be present during the crime in order to be able to say what happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
As you can see from the above definition, evolution has never been restricted to species change; but if you want to insist that it is, go ahead and believe it; but don't be surprised if you aren't taken seriously. You don't get to change the meaning of words because you don't like them.

Ken

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Guy come on, the burden of proof that ACB requires is too high, you would never be able to convince him of anything, you're best just to leave him alone to his own thoughts.

Ignore me because you can't handle the truth? I do not ignore people I disagree with I come with evidence which I have given.Evidence outshines words but I cannot make anybody change their mind,but evidence changes mine.

I am pretty sure those words did not come out of my hands, I said the burden of proof you require is too high, it is fruitless to continue.

Well I'm not your enemy just because I differ with you and so I hope you can understand that.I just go by evidence,it is how I research and study things.You may do the same but I zone in on evidence and its became a habit of mine so that it is normal to me now.Do not think evidence would not change my mind about evolution because I have no problem admitting I am wrong and I have changed my mind about things and I would accept evolution if the evidence backs it up.This is how God led me to research things and is just how I do it.Evidence.