Evidence for God from Science

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:
Could you just once skip the op ed?

You still did not answer.

Try again.

Do you think a "transitional" creature means "not fully formed"?

If so, where did you get such an idea? It is nowhere in literature ot science.

You still gave no drscription of what you think a "transitional" or "not fully formed"
creature would be like. Instead you point fingers. fabricate ill motives, etc.

Try again. Do you think "transitional" and "not fully formed" mean thd same?

Try to describe what a not fully formed creature would be like.

No editorials this time.

I answered you already,it doesn't bother you that Darwin was wrong? He is the main reason for the ToE so it should not be ignored. A transitional fossil would show clear transition between one kind of creature and another,so the fact they do not show transition is evidence against evolution. It cannot be both fully formed and transitional,you've just got that chart in your head and so you look at fossils as transitional fossils.It's not your fault though,you are just going on what you were taught and read in science books. I still say a former world,a lost world,different than this world makes the most sense when it comes to the fossils,they simply show the life that lived in that former world and it confirms the gap theory interpretation,that there was a gap between that world and this world,this is why it shows a different world than this world we now live in and biblically as you may know there is going to be another world in the future after this world.

That is not an answer ACB.

And Darwin was wrong on a number of things, but we know that already. Science isn't by the way, the method is self-correcting so it doesn't matter what you think or Darwin thought.

Science is not self-correcting like you claim,if they were they would not push theories as true science without evidence to back it up,like with evolution. They circle the wagons and defend evolution promoting it as true science when it is'nt even close to be proven. Scientists are not being honest about evolution because if they were they would admit it is not true science. You need to take the time on your own and look at the evidence yourself,if you don't believe me. I'm not anti-science I just expect good science. Go through the evidence yourself and see that the only think they have proven is the bible true when it tells us God created life to breed and produce after its kind. Look at the many examples of evidence in evolution science and see this demonstrated over and over. Like I have said before,it really has nothing at all to do with my faith in God that I reject evolution,I'd reject it even if I was an atheist. Do the research yourself if you don't believe me,you'll see.

Funny, I took a couple of years to really dig into evolution and found out how true it was. I sincerely believe now that you reject evolution because you don't understand it...at all.

Yeah,I know and I've went through some of your evolution thread. I'd like to know what evidence convinced you to accept it without having to assume and speculate about it. I really think a lot of Christians have chose to accept it simply because,if you can't beat them? Join them. It is easy to do and I could do it. The church has really had nothing to really counter it and you can believe in God and evolution. So what convinces you to accept it.I have had plenty of people tell me I don't understand it,but I do. I used to go into a lion's den of atheists on a forum to be challenged and I do know about evolution.I would not recommend it unless a person is strong in their faith,but I liked the challenge,until I was banned because people complained about me to the mods too much,but I saw plenty of debates with atheists on their about science and evolution. I tested the Gap Theory out against evolution too,so I know how effective it can be and I was less knowledgeable about it then.These atheists pride themselves on reason and challenge any Christian who posts on there,it can be like ten on one on there,not many Christians last there.These atheists know all about science.

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:
Could you just once skip the op ed?

You still did not answer.

Try again.

Do you think a "transitional" creature means "not fully formed"?

If so, where did you get such an idea? It is nowhere in literature ot science.

You still gave no drscription of what you think a "transitional" or "not fully formed"
creature would be like. Instead you point fingers. fabricate ill motives, etc.

Try again. Do you think "transitional" and "not fully formed" mean thd same?

Try to describe what a not fully formed creature would be like.

No editorials this time.

I answered you already,it doesn't bother you that Darwin was wrong? He is the main reason for the ToE so it should not be ignored. A transitional fossil would show clear transition between one kind of creature and another,so the fact they do not show transition is evidence against evolution. It cannot be both fully formed and transitional,you've just got that chart in your head and so you look at fossils as transitional fossils.It's not your fault though,you are just going on what you were taught and read in science books. I still say a former world,a lost world,different than this world makes the most sense when it comes to the fossils,they simply show the life that lived in that former world and it confirms the gap theory interpretation,that there was a gap between that world and this world,this is why it shows a different world than this world we now live in and biblically as you may know there is going to be another world in the future after this world.

That is not an answer ACB.

And Darwin was wrong on a number of things, but we know that already. Science isn't by the way, the method is self-correcting so it doesn't matter what you think or Darwin thought.

Science is not self-correcting like you claim,if they were they would not push theories as true science without evidence to back it up,like with evolution. They circle the wagons and defend evolution promoting it as true science when it is'nt even close to be proven. Scientists are not being honest about evolution because if they were they would admit it is not true science. You need to take the time on your own and look at the evidence yourself,if you don't believe me. I'm not anti-science I just expect good science. Go through the evidence yourself and see that the only think they have proven is the bible true when it tells us God created life to breed and produce after its kind. Look at the many examples of evidence in evolution science and see this demonstrated over and over. Like I have said before,it really has nothing at all to do with my faith in God that I reject evolution,I'd reject it even if I was an atheist. Do the research yourself if you don't believe me,you'll see.

Funny, I took a couple of years to really dig into evolution and found out how true it was. I sincerely believe now that you reject evolution because you don't understand it...at all. I also think that you have never studied anything serious regarding evolution because your dismissals of it arise from common myths among anti/evolution circles. You never give a technical reason only from ignorance of the facts.

It's sad actually. You don't know what you are missing out.

I explain in an easy to understand way why I reject evolution. The evolutionists on here don't get technical about it,and so I don't.Let's get into the evidence and you'll see in every example of evidence you'll see only kinds producing after their kind,like I have explained. Look into the salamanders and see salamanders producing after their kind with only normal variation like we see with dogs and roses,it's the same thing,just normal variation and from this it is assumed that it can evolve into a different creature,given enough time,like dinosaurs evolving into birds,but based on just normal variation in reproduction? Where is the evidence life evolves? Viruses remain viruses,bacteria remains bacteria,fruit flies remain fruit flies,dogs remain dogs,roses remain roses,salamanders remain salamanders so how can we believe life evolves when the only thing being demonstrated is normal variation in reproduction within each species?

Based on their own evidence life does not and cannot evolve,we just see the same variety within each kind of life/species of life and its the same thing we see with dogs and roses,no evidence life evolves. They need evidence that actually demonstrates dinosaurs could evolve into birds but all they have done is prove there is variation in reproduction and this in Noway would lead us to believe a dinosaurs could evolve into birds.Everything else they teach and explain about how life evolves has no evidence behind it and it is just preaching what they believe,but without evidence.

Also based on the evidence harsh environments have absolutely no effect and we still only see normal variation within each species,regardless of the environment,it has no effect.

They also confuse adaptation too and act like because life can adapt it can evolve. But there is no evidence because even when life is able to adapt,it still remains the same kind of life. Like Eskimos who adapted to live in the extreme cold,their bodies have adapted to it,but they have not evolved and have remained humans or like bacteria that grows and thrives in Chernobyl,it actually thrives in it,yet it remains bacteria which shows natural selection is a myth too.They need evidence that proves a harsh environment can lead to life evolving after having adapted to a harsh environment.We must not assume it can just because they explain how it can and does evolve.


Here is something else I noticed about evolution is scientists choose when it is important when life cannot breed even when they already know not all life can breed within a species. Yet when it comes to life evolving it is evolving when it can no longer breed. Try breeding a Great Dain with a Chihuahua and they cannot breed,they don't evolve because of it either.You still get a dog based on what they can breed with.Or like with a tiger and a lion,it is rare,but they can actually breed,but it still produces a cat.No matter whether it can or cannot breed we still get normal variation in reproduction. So how can anybody assume life will evolve if/when it can no longer breed? It is a myth not backed up by evidence we all can see and observe.

Have any of the atheists/evolutionists here read The Edge of Evolution by Michael Behe?
A pretty damning look at the limits of evolution, and also a nail in the coffin of evolution.

neo-x wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

neo-x wrote:QM matter pops out of literally, nothing.

That's not actually true.

Could you list your objection in a little more detail, K. thanks.

A quantum vacuum isn't literally nothing.

But that is exactly what it is, K, a vacuum. My point is that it starts as such but doesn't remain one because quantum particles appear eventually.

I'm not a quantum scientist, but I've researched and had this discussion numerous times to know better than the often made claim that something pops out of nothing.

A quantum vacuum isn't actually nothing, but rather a field with very low energy. Even when talking a zero energy universe, such as Krauss posits for our own universe's existence, you still have negative and positive energy, which isn't nothing but something. You may get away with "nothing" in a materialist sense, but it isn't literally nothing in a strictly logical sense of what "nothing" means.

None of these cases of material stuff "popping into existence" resembles anything like coming from literally nothing, because there is actually something that exists. And... it, i.e., particles of matter, all require this sea of energy (quantum vacuum) being structured this way or that.

Kurieuo wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: That's not actually true.

Could you list your objection in a little more detail, K. thanks.

A quantum vacuum isn't literally nothing.

But that is exactly what it is, K, a vacuum. My point is that it starts as such but doesn't remain one because quantum particles appear eventually.

I'm not a quantum scientist, but I've researched and had this discussion numerous times to know better than the often made claim that something pops out of nothing.

A quantum vacuum isn't actually nothing, but rather a field with very low energy. Even when talking a zero energy universe, such as Krauss posits for our own universe's existence, you still have negative and positive energy, which isn't nothing but something. You may get away with "nothing" in a materialist sense, but it isn't literally nothing in a strictly logical sense of what "nothing" means.

None of these cases of material stuff "popping into existence" resembles anything like coming from literally nothing, because there is actually something that exists. And... it, i.e., particles of matter, all require this sea of energy (quantum vacuum) being structured this way or that.

Ok, but that's generally what I am also saying that the vacuum is filled with quantum particles and even they are not physical. Some scientists have also claimed that matter is actually the byproduct of quantum fluctuation. Though I haven't read much about the last claim.

And I think k, that much of the confusion arises because of the uncertainty principle. The particles appear for the tiniest of a billion parts of a second and then poof out. And even then we can't know the position and the speed of these simultaneously. We see particles for such short time. We imagine these particles like planets orbiting the sun. But in reality its more like blurry images going by. Like a speeded up fan whose blades are too blurry to be made out.

And for what Audie mentioned earlier the true weirdness is perhaps never experienced. I mean you think you have kissed your wife, sat in a chair, held a book, or a mobile phone. Typed on a keyboard? But in reality none of us have ever really done that. I mean if you are sitting in your chair and reading this, you are actually not touching the chair at all. In fact you are separated from the chair by a distance so small that we almost feel it as the sense of touch. However the opposite charged particles in your body and the chair are repelling each other and thus you are suspended by a billionth of an atom where the orbiting proton or electron's charge field, exists. You are really suspended in space.

As someone once said, reality is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense.

Stu wrote:Have any of the atheists/evolutionists here read The Edge of Evolution by Michael Behe?
A pretty damning look at the limits of evolution, and also a nail in the coffin of evolution.

If only that was true, Stu.

neo-x wrote:And I think k, that much of the confusion arises because of the uncertainty principle. The particles appear for the tiniest of a billion parts of a second and then poof out. And even then we can't know the position and the speed of these simultaneously. We see particles for such short time. We imagine these particles like planets orbiting the sun. But in reality its more like blurry images going by. Like a speeded up fan whose blades are too blurry to be made out.

....

As someone once said, reality is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense.

It's one reason I don't believe our world is wholly mechanical or fundamentally material or physical. When such glitches, if we may call them that, are seen on the most base levels, an observer-perception altered reality, then the missing ingredient from all scientific theories is understanding consciousness and how it relates to and impacts upon our world.

Don't get me wrong, physical theories are great at explaining physical constructions, but if the world isn't entirely mechanically run by such, then strangeness like you mention would be an eventual and expected outcome.

neo-x wrote:

Stu wrote:Have any of the atheists/evolutionists here read The Edge of Evolution by Michael Behe?
A pretty damning look at the limits of evolution, and also a nail in the coffin of evolution.

If only that was true, Stu.

Have you read the book?

If not, then how would you know...

I have read enough to know about it. But to be honest with you, I do intend to read the book if only to confirm what I think.

neo-x wrote:I have read enough to know about it. But to be honest with you, I do intend to read the book if only to confirm what I think.

I suggest you read the book, and make sure you get to the chapter on protein-binding sites.

Stu wrote:

neo-x wrote:I have read enough to know about it. But to be honest with you, I do intend to read the book if only to confirm what I think.

I suggest you read the book, and make sure you get to the chapter on protein-binding sites.

When religious people show they are so easily led astray by charlatans, is says something unfortunate about their faith.

Audie wrote:

Stu wrote:

neo-x wrote:I have read enough to know about it. But to be honest with you, I do intend to read the book if only to confirm what I think.

I suggest you read the book, and make sure you get to the chapter on protein-binding sites.

When religious people show they are so easily led astray by charlatans, is says something unfortunate about their faith.

Have you read the book? No, probably not. It just shows the true arrogance and dismissiveness with which you conduct yourself. Just because someone has a different opinion to yourself doesn't make them a charlatan. Does that compute? Heck if that was the case Dawkins would be a complete idiot.

Old atheists: I'm an atheist.
New atheists: I'm an atheist, so I'm better than you.

Seriously, if you haven't even read the material best to just keep your mouth shut. But it seems that is MO of most atheists these days including the popular ones.

When religious people show they are so easily led astray by charlatans, is says something unfortunate about their faith.

I surely hope this is a referral to someone's belief in some aspect of facts or scientific understandings that may be inaccurate, but not the truth of their faith iN GOD.

Stu wrote:

Audie wrote:

Stu wrote:

neo-x wrote:I have read enough to know about it. But to be honest with you, I do intend to read the book if only to confirm what I think.

I suggest you read the book, and make sure you get to the chapter on protein-binding sites.

When religious people show they are so easily led astray by charlatans, is says something unfortunate about their faith.

Have you read the book? No, probably not. It just shows the true arrogance and dismissiveness with which you conduct yourself. Just because someone has a different opinion to yourself doesn't make them a charlatan. Does that compute? Heck if that was the case Dawkins would be a complete idiot.

Old atheists: I'm an atheist.
New atheists: I'm an atheist, so I'm better than you.

Seriously, if you haven't even read the material best to just keep your mouth shut. But it seems that is MO of most atheists these days including the popular ones.

The truth bites and stings, doesnt it?

You were right about one thing tho. It isnt just his opinion that makes him a charlatan.